LS5 Engine
07-30-2010, 11:25 PM
#21
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,040
Likes: 0
Received 1,492 Likes
on
1,074 Posts
07-31-2010, 08:45 PM
#22
TECH Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Antioch, Ca
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
--if they start at 6.2l, where can they really go from there? If you start with a smaller 5.5l that already makes more power/efficiency than the current LS3, why not start with that smaller motor and be able to increase power by either (a) increase in displacement or (b) forced induction?
--Maybe (and please don't take this as anything more than a thought that popped into my head), for reasons i cant explain, they tried a bigger displacement motor, which created a lot of power but wasn't any more efficient?? (Again, this is a theory that is completely pulled out of thin air)
08-01-2010, 12:40 AM
#23
I see where you're coming from. I see two possible reasons for their decision:
--if they start at 6.2l, where can they really go from there? If you start with a smaller 5.5l that already makes more power/efficiency than the current LS3, why not start with that smaller motor and be able to increase power by either (a) increase in displacement or (b) forced induction?
--Maybe (and please don't take this as anything more than a thought that popped into my head), for reasons i cant explain, they tried a bigger displacement motor, which created a lot of power but wasn't any more efficient?? (Again, this is a theory that is completely pulled out of thin air)
--if they start at 6.2l, where can they really go from there? If you start with a smaller 5.5l that already makes more power/efficiency than the current LS3, why not start with that smaller motor and be able to increase power by either (a) increase in displacement or (b) forced induction?
--Maybe (and please don't take this as anything more than a thought that popped into my head), for reasons i cant explain, they tried a bigger displacement motor, which created a lot of power but wasn't any more efficient?? (Again, this is a theory that is completely pulled out of thin air)
I'm pretty sure they won't go backwards in overall performance regardless of which path they choose.Though I'm sure quite a few people said the very same thing back in 1970 and look what happened there LOL.
I'm hoping that even if the motor makes less torque than the current 6.2L that the car will at least be lighter as well which could really level things back up a bit.
08-01-2010, 03:08 PM
#25
LS10? How bout an LS based V10? That would definitely be fun. I couldn't see it in any corvette or Camaro, but how 'bout a new sleek super car maybe based on the corvette with a nice LS10 with options and styling GM has never had, kinda like the Lexus LFA. Maybe by the time i graduate school GM will be ready to show off its financial strength ( i graduate as a car designer in 2014 heehee).
08-01-2010, 03:45 PM
#26
TECH Resident
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wouldnt believe me if i told you
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was no V10 but there were a few V16s produced, basically two LS2s put together.
The cadillac 16 concepts had them and bob lutz swapped one into his tahoe, which he daily drove for a while.
The cadillac 16 concepts had them and bob lutz swapped one into his tahoe, which he daily drove for a while.
shutup, seriously? (on the lutz part, ive seen stuff on the 16) 
08-03-2010, 09:32 AM
#30
Whats even more mind boggling is that its .2L less displacement than the LS1 yet makes another 100HP (ls1 345hp... ls5 estimated 450hp 10-20 more than LS3). I am seeing head swaps/conversions in the future (as obviously the displacement doesn't matter lol)?!
08-03-2010, 02:01 PM
#32
In other words, reviving the LS6 and LS7 nameplates = good/nostalgic
Reviving the LS5 nameplate = not quite as good/nostalgic
08-03-2010, 02:56 PM
#33
Staging Lane
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Anderson, IN
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LS1-7, LS9, LSA, LSX.
We're missing 0 and 8... plus we still have 24 of the 26 letters in the alphabet left. Engines with the LS designation could go on for quite some time.
No need to bust out the jump to conclusions mat.
I'm interested to see the complete stats for the LS5. The European Circuit Corvette seems to be tearing people a new one with the engine. I just hope they don't keep making the engines smaller.
The 3.6L V6 was perfect, yet they had to make the 3.0L V6. ...which they replaced that with a 2.4L I4 in the LaCrosse if that gives you any idea how great of an engine the 3.0L turned out to be. Epic fail.
We're missing 0 and 8... plus we still have 24 of the 26 letters in the alphabet left. Engines with the LS designation could go on for quite some time.
No need to bust out the jump to conclusions mat.
I'm interested to see the complete stats for the LS5. The European Circuit Corvette seems to be tearing people a new one with the engine. I just hope they don't keep making the engines smaller.
The 3.6L V6 was perfect, yet they had to make the 3.0L V6. ...which they replaced that with a 2.4L I4 in the LaCrosse if that gives you any idea how great of an engine the 3.0L turned out to be. Epic fail.
08-03-2010, 03:12 PM
#34
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,040
Likes: 0
Received 1,492 Likes
on
1,074 Posts
That association with the old (early '70s 454) LS5 is one of the potential downsides to using that particular designation. Even though it was still a relatively potent motor, the old LS5 454 was really just a sad rendition/continuation of the famed but 'unfortunately killed off' 1970 LS6 454.
In other words, reviving the LS6 and LS7 nameplates = good/nostalgic
Reviving the LS5 nameplate = not quite as good/nostalgic
In other words, reviving the LS6 and LS7 nameplates = good/nostalgic
Reviving the LS5 nameplate = not quite as good/nostalgic
The LS5 was offered right along side the LS6 in 1970, as a 390hp motor. Then continued in '71 & '72 as a 365hp (gross ratings) engine. It wasn't a continuation of the LS6 as they were both introduced in 1970, it just wasn't the "hottest" motor offered that year. It still received a very respectable power rating in 1970, considering the old "top dog" (not counting various 427ci back-door offerings) L78/396ci was only 375hp.
08-03-2010, 04:37 PM
#36
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,040
Likes: 0
Received 1,492 Likes
on
1,074 Posts
L99 is a funny example, it's last duty (prior to being the bi-curious cylinder-dropping brother of the mighty LS3) was the "mini" LT1. A 4.3L V8 that looked similar to a '92-'97 LT1 externally and was often found in Caprices.
08-03-2010, 05:21 PM
#38
TECH Addict
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Simi Valley, CA.
Posts: 2,727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^^ Here you go.
http://www.katechengines.com/street_...20Portrait.pdf
Interesting to see this tech finally making it to the public. I can't wait to see what kind of numbers a larger version of this motor puts down when modded. Hell i cant wait to see what this smaller motor puts down with a little massaging.
Here is a good article on the 5.5 in the GT2 C6.R along with a few tidbits about the future potential of this tech on other engine, namely the ZR1 getting 700hp+ as a result of the DI addition.
http://www.lsxtv.com/forum/power-ls5-5-5l-2938.html
http://www.katechengines.com/street_...20Portrait.pdf
Interesting to see this tech finally making it to the public. I can't wait to see what kind of numbers a larger version of this motor puts down when modded. Hell i cant wait to see what this smaller motor puts down with a little massaging.
Here is a good article on the 5.5 in the GT2 C6.R along with a few tidbits about the future potential of this tech on other engine, namely the ZR1 getting 700hp+ as a result of the DI addition.
http://www.lsxtv.com/forum/power-ls5-5-5l-2938.html
Last edited by djsanchez2; 08-03-2010 at 07:40 PM.
08-10-2010, 02:16 AM
#39
Douchebag On The Tree
I'd have to respectfully disagree with that. Usually, I agree with you on most things, but in this case I feel differently.
The LS5 was offered right along side the LS6 in 1970, as a 390hp motor. Then continued in '71 & '72 as a 365hp (gross ratings) engine. It wasn't a continuation of the LS6 as they were both introduced in 1970, it just wasn't the "hottest" motor offered that year. It still received a very respectable power rating in 1970, considering the old "top dog" (not counting various 427ci back-door offerings) L78/396ci was only 375hp.
The LS5 was offered right along side the LS6 in 1970, as a 390hp motor. Then continued in '71 & '72 as a 365hp (gross ratings) engine. It wasn't a continuation of the LS6 as they were both introduced in 1970, it just wasn't the "hottest" motor offered that year. It still received a very respectable power rating in 1970, considering the old "top dog" (not counting various 427ci back-door offerings) L78/396ci was only 375hp.
