Why is it called an LT1, again?
10-08-2013, 02:59 AM
#101
I'm personally waiting for the first LS to LT conversion thread. 
Model year is one of the first three questions asked at every parts counter I have ever visited, and have never been asked for the Engine RPO code. Considering that the Gen II LT1 and Gen V LT1 will never be factory isntalled in the same model years, this should be a huge non-issue.
On another note, it should be important for any company, most especially one like GM recently recovering from bankruptcy, to send a message which gives people the impression that they are advancing, making progress, leaving old ways behind and moving forward. Reusing old RPO codes probably does not send a good message as many are left thinking: "Great, more of the same."
Last edited by RedVertTA; 10-08-2013 at 03:25 AM.
10-08-2013, 01:28 PM
#102
So am I.
You're right about this when it comes to cars that came with one of these motors from the factory. The same cannot be said for anyone with an engine swap. Looking back at the lsx legacy we all should realize that swaps will probably be just as commonplace with its successor, if not more.
You're right, we can avoid mistakes by being careful but its still an extra step that could have been avoided. I don't see how this was necessary. It seems to me like someone at GM with considerable pull has a real hard on for reusing old RPO codes and we're all being made to jump this extra hoop for their satisfaction.
On another note, it should be important for any company, most especially one like GM recently recovering from bankruptcy, to send a message which gives people the impression that they are advancing, making progress, leaving old ways behind and moving forward. Reusing old RPO codes probably does not send a good message as many are left thinking: "Great, more of the same."
Most buyers wouldn't know an RPO code is it slapped them in the face. This whole arguement is in the enthusiast realm, which seems to believer that everyone else is a knowledgeavble and care as much as they do. Overall, the RPO code is a non-issue being made into an issue in small community for no good reason.
10-15-2013, 04:39 PM
#103
Teching In
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While all this bickering makes for interesting reading (not), I'm amazed that nobody has noticed that T comes after S in the alphabet, it seems that it could have been that simple the fact that the LT rpo's have heritage just made it that much easier.
Joe
Joe
10-24-2013, 01:09 AM
#105
On The Tree
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: houston
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM really messed up by calling the new power plant an LT. They spent the last 15 plus years getting people used to the name LS, weather it be LS1, LS2, LS6, LS9, LSX you name it. People hear "LS" and they automatically know what it is, this took GM 15 years to accomplish. A sort of pavlovian response one could say.
So why after 15 years and finally achieving name recognitions for the LS did GM change back to the LT? Same reason they needed a bail out I suppose.
So why after 15 years and finally achieving name recognitions for the LS did GM change back to the LT? Same reason they needed a bail out I suppose.
11-19-2013, 12:18 PM
#106
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Shreveport, LA
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right about this when it comes to cars that came with one of these motors from the factory. The same cannot be said for anyone with an engine swap. Looking back at the lsx legacy we all should realize that swaps will probably be just as commonplace with its successor, if not more
All they have to say is
its a 6.2l LT1.
