RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

I'll be happy to show you the paperwork, just as soon as I finish forging it.

I guess my above attempt at humorous sarcasm ended up being a bit too convincing. Sorry for the confusion.

JohnnyBs98WS6Rag

iTrader: (1)

No problem. I guess my fear of not knowing everything you know was getting a little exposed there.

dtkb

hey every one been watching this for a wile and finally decided to chime in,
i can imagine im going to have a lot of non believers but i do infact have a 1 or 1 2002 trans om ws6 with a ls6 complete from gm. i have a binder with full build sheets and all specs dinos and even pictures of the car on assembly line. father in law worked for GM and made this happen unfortunately this did get him in some hot water and lost job over the car but the unicorn is real!!!!

JohnnyBs98WS6Rag

iTrader: (1)

I'd love to see that paperwork on your car, especially the driver's door RPO decal. Not saying that an undocumented car could not have slipped through, only that this isn't the first time I've seen no proof of this claim.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

The days of "anything can happen" on the assembly line were long over before the 4th gen F-body ever hit production. Everything from emissions certifications (FTP) to tuning and automated line processes make these sort of "1 of 1" engine-chassis configurations impossible for general public sale.

With that said, it's true that every OEM builds test mules and such - cars that are never meant to be sold to the public and sometimes don't even have a proper VIN to ever be registered. Most of these end up getting crushed, but occasionally they survive (for example, there were C4 Corvettes that were "factory" fitted with an LS1 for various types of testing, or so the story goes, but none were sold to the public). So I wouldn't be surprised if something odd was still out there in the universe that once fell under a situation as the aforementioned. But this isn't something that was ever designated for use beyond the manufacturer's testing purposes.

Ultimately, if you somehow have one of these off-the-books cars, all that documentation you mentioned above would be the only proof of its "original" equipment. And if the car DOES have a complete VIN number originally issued for general sale then I'm sure it would not indicate an LS6 engine from the factory (as this was not an available option) so, again, extensive documentation is even more critical (and even more likely to be scrutinized).

Keep in mind, LS6 engines were not fitted into vehicles in the plant where 2002 Trans Ams were built, so either the engine went to the car or the car went to the engine. Many things would've had to take place for this to have happened on the original assembly line, so your father-in-law must've been in a very high position beyond just a single plant. Hard to imagine he would risk, and ultimately lose, such an important job over something like this. If he was that high up the ladder, then I would expect that he could've had this car built as one of those test projects and assigned a non-saleable VIN, thereby preventing any legal issues for GM.

dtkb

I do realize that it's hard to belive, but as I mentioned i do have full documentation of the car as well as videos from inside the assembly plant showing the ls6 being installed by gm. I will attach my last appraisal stating this is the real deal 🙂

JohnnyBs98WS6Rag

iTrader: (1)

Well put, RPM. I suspect this may be another story that will end up with the discovery that the LS1s that were installed in '02 F-bods had LS6 intakes.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Unfortunately, the appraisal report does not agree with the visible GM document in that picture. It says that "the build sheet clearly shows the non-available option included", but that's NOT consistent with what is shown above. I zoomed in on the broadcast sheet (manifest) as closely as possible to view the RPOs on the bottom of the sheet, and it appears to show "LS1" - not LS6. Not sure what other documentation might exist that isn't shown above, but that appraisal report is highly suspect based on the visible discrepancy between it and the broadcast sheet. Unless there is further GM documentation showing this VIN number associated with an LS6 RPO, then whatever happened here is not really a factory creation.

If the story is true then it's certainly interesting, but it would have required involvement of employees at more than one plant. How far did the firings go? And how did your father-in-law get folks in another plant to go along with this?

440_Stroker

I do believe there is a difference between the LS1 and LS6 tune. I highly doubt GM would flash the computer for the LS6. There is an easy way to check.

JohnnyBs98WS6Rag

iTrader: (1)

Indeed it does. However, to be fair, the F-bods (SS and Firehawks) that got LT4s "factory installed" (by SLP) in '97 had RPO LT1 and not LT4. However, there were more than a handful of these built, and with a configuration support structure in place to give these cars a unique tune (if it was even required?) AND warranty support, are much more believable than a 1-off LS6 in place of a LS1. Keep in mind that the LS1 was also a "Corvette engine" in all years that the F-body received them.

Some additional "mule" trivia: There were 266 '96 Camaros built w/ RPO LS1 (also Z28). according to CompNine's database and 122 more in '97. Without a doubt, if the OP's car has a legit LS6 installed at the factory, it was certainly done on the "down low" with no intention of obtaining DOT certification for that engine in that platform. Therefore block and head casting numbers would go a long way to validating the legitimacy of the LS6 in the OP's car.

440_Stroker

If not mistaken, which I could be, the LT4 F-Bodies still used the LT1 tune and not even the knock sensors were LT4 versions and still used the LT1's. As the only factory engine option was LT1 I think those cars were built as such and then the LT4 was part of the Firehawk and SS option. It's been so long I cant recall. But I did get to drive an LT4 Firehawk. Quick car but not really all that fast. Should have bought it. 30k miles for $17k a few years ago.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

I agree with all of the above.

As you correctly stated, the '97 SSs and Firehawks which received LT4 conversions were done off-site at SLP (GM authorized contractor) rather than on the actual GM assembly line, hence their SPIDs, broadcast sheets and VINs all indicate being born with LT1 engines from GM. The supplemental documentation from SLP is the only proof of engine conversion originality (as part of an OEM offered package that was available for sale to the public as second sticker content) for these examples.

But what dtkb seems to be claiming above is that this LS6 install was somehow done on the actual GM assembly line at STE during regular production, seeming to imply that there was no "conversion" (unlike the LT4 cars of 1997) and that the car was born with an LS6 as the initial and only engine ever installed even though the manifest (pictured above) shows that this car was slated to be born with an LS1. This raises several questions:

1) How was a complete LS6 engine ordered and delivered to the STE plant when no regular production vehicles scheduled for LS6 install were assembled at that facility?

2) How many folks would need to be involved in the logistics of this event in order to make it actually happen as described? And why was only one person terminated (at the plant level) for doing this when it would have required involvement from persons at more than one plant, and/or an executive who's reach extended beyond a single plant?

3) Why does this "appraisal report" specifically indicate that the original build sheet clearly states that this vehicle was assembled with a "non-available" engine option when, in fact, the only visible build sheet provided actually shows an LS1 engine? Was there a second manifest? If so, why does the report not include recognition of dual broadcast sheets for a single VIN (and why were we not shown the sheet that actually contains this VIN number associated with an LS6 RPO)?

The part of the story about the heads/cam being removed by a dealer as "apparently part of a GM recall", but then later reinstalled, seems to be quite the convenient explanation for why obvious engine work (such as marks on head bolts, etc.) would be present on an example that supposedly "came from the factory" with an LS6. If someone jumped through all the hoops and logistics between multiple plants to make this happen AND document it prior to GM management discovering it, then it seems like they would have had a way to get it though the final delivering dealer without those pieces being removed under a "recall" (which presumably would have happened as a special alert during a PDI, since there would be no reason for the person who ultimately lost their job for doing this to ever return for the recall).

jybravo70

iTrader: (5)

I have a question, is the STE plant UAW unionized? Knowing a little about unions, this would require a coordinated effort between plant management and union workers to go outside their normal channels. Unions rely heavily on paperwork (either bills of lading or bills of currency). A paper trail confirming this would either be a career ending move, which seems to be the case for at least 1 possibly more, or the paper trail would have been "lost". I am sure GM would notice an assembled engine that "went missing" in one plant and an "extra" being within another. Again, this would require a lot of coordination to pull off and apparently it was only successful in getting the car built.

I looked at the build sheet against my CETA's RPO codes and its about a 70% match, mine has traction control, 4 way passenger manual seat, security packaging, power package, but this one didn't get it and there are some codes I am not familiar with, AU3, A31, A90, all the B codes, C49, DT2, K05, T82, T96, V15 and V19. Now if a unique engine package was put in there I am not sure they if that would show up on the RPO but would be on the build sheet as the union guys would need to know what bin to pull from, unlike the earlier Firehawk builds that were done post build outside the factory. While the RPO shows a LS1 option, the people on the floor would need something to tell them what to install and if there is video of them doing this it would have to have been well communicated as video devices in 2002 were still large and obvious.

From the related thread below the most definitive way to tell seems to be looking around the water pump: From Redbird 555 "Yup an easier way to tell is look at the top of the block behind the water pump if you have an ls1 block u will have 2 bullseye casting marks on the corners if it's flat it's an ls6"

Not saying it could not happen, but a heck of a lot of trouble went into this and all the questions and speculation about it after the fact in proving its existence is legit seems to be more trouble than it is worth as auction houses would need an overwhelming burden of proof this was all done in factory to get the type of prices a 1 of 1 would attract.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

^ In regards to the above post, STE (St. Thérčse) was in Canada so it should fall under the CAW, and I seem to recall that LS6 engines were produced at the St. Catharines plant (also in Canada), or perhaps they were done in Romulus, MI at some point? Either way, there would be no normal reason for an LS6 engine to be delivered to STE for regular 2002 model year production, so the unique logistics necessary for this claim would begin there. Also, quite a few 2001-'02 F-bodies have reportedly come with LS6 blocks. The figures have been stated to be somewhere in the 10-25% range, not sure how accurate that range is but it's a known situation and nothing so rare as to be a unicorn collectible. But the claim of a complete LS6 engine (meaning 243 heads and LS6 cam) is what's in question here.

The evidence presented so far is, in my opinion, not credible as the appraisal report specifically says that the build sheet (broadcast/manifest pictured above) shows something that it does not. So unless there is a second manifest that we haven't yet seen, I can't understand why the appraiser would have made such a glaring error.

This is a pretty fantastical story with several questions still unanswered and one very concerning discrepancy so far (specifically the manifest-appraisal disagreement), plus a rather convenient explanation for why there has been engine work done post-assembly. When someone publicly claims to have a unicorn (especially in regards to highly regulated late model vehicles such as these) the burden of proof definitely lies on them (as mentioned in the post above), and there would need to be rock solid evidence which is free from any discrepancy for this to be considered legitimate.

Cahill93Z28

Yup, never an LS6 in a 4th gen, but there should have been in 2002 as a final curtain call. I've always wondered if it was considered

Will Lee

My 02 Firehawk (SLP Build #1107) has both the LS6 block & the LS6 intake manifold from the factory.

I believe roughly 15% of the 2001 F-Body’s & roughly 25% of the 2002 F-body’s received the LS6 intake manifolds.

The LS6 blocks however were said to be hidden gems amongst the final custom/special order-sales of 2002.
..& completely unbeknownst the owner, as it was not an option nor part of a package.

It was actually never specified, & it took many years for the majority of people to figure out.

The plant workers that assembled the last F-Body’s, & the few workers from SLP Performance.. tell stories about when nobody believed in their final sendoff of “Factory Freaks.”

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Every 2001+ LS1 F-body came from the factory with an LS6 intake. This was standard issue for 100% of examples, there are no exceptions.

It was the LS6 blocks that appeared in some 2001 (said to be roughly 10-15%) and 2002 (said to be roughly 20-25%) cars. This wasn't directly tied to "final production" special ordered examples of 2002 cars - but you are correct that it was not part of any option package nor was any owner notified of this prior to, or upon, delivery.

But an LS6 block is not the same as a complete LS6 engine. The latter would contain 243 heads and a different camshaft, and those are the items which were responsible for the increased power rating of the LS6 engine. Those parts (243 heads and LS6 cam) were not fitted to any regular production 4th gen F-body of any model year (including the final days of 2002 assembly and/or special ordered cars).

Not sure what is being implied here, but there were no cars at the end of assembly that received any special "hidden gems" of performance (from GM or SLP) that hadn't already been available or optional on any other comparable trim level of LS1 F-body throughout the 2002 model year.

Will Lee

When I say LS6 “block,” that is strictly what I mean.

But yes, thank you for correcting my percentage’s.

Quite a few of the 02 LS6 blocks are actually the blocks with the open webs at the main for better oil control from bay to bay and are worth a few hp at high rpms.
..the better quality aluminum/darker castings from 2000/2001 were still LS1 molds.

LS1 and LS6 blocks were cast in different foundries and with different methods.
The LS1 block was cast in a semi-permanent mold, with the LS6's foundry deciding to go their own route in 2002 back to the more traditional sand-casting process instead of casting LS1 molds.
Side by side, it's easy to tell the blocks apart: There are crankcase ventilation differences, and the sand-cast LS6 blocks are simply darker than all the LS1 molds.

Will Lee

Not sure what is being implied here, but there were no cars at the end of assembly that received any special "hidden gems" of performance (from GM or SLP) that hadn't already been available or optional on any other comparable trim level of LS1 F-body throughout the 2002 model year.[/QUOTE]


SLP later stated that their 345 package was truly an understatement for 2002 T56 equipped Firehawks..


Here’s some general notes tho:

https://ls1tech.com/forums/new-ls1-o...ml#post1740880

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Over the years I've heard folks argue the merits of slightly better power being possible from an LS6 block, all else being equal. It's never been proven to be significant though. The real power gains of an LS6 engine come from the heads and cam (and the intake but, as mentioned above, the LS6 intake was present on every single LS1 F-body built for the 2001 and 2002 model year).

The 345hp package was available throughout the 2002 model year (though I do recall that some very early '02 Firehawks did not get the standard-for-2002 Blackwing lid during their conversion). This package could be ordered on any 2002 Camaro SS (auto or manual) and was standard for Firehawk (auto or manual) - it was not reserved for the final cars off the assembly line and/or T56 cars. The package itself, which included a 20hp rating bump, was not an understatement - it was a simple matter of a catback exhaust (SLP dual/dual, with or without CME tips for Camaro SS) and an air lid (Blackwing version). The "hidden power" of these cars had nothing to do with this package, but rather the fact that all F-body LS1s had been underrated by GM since the 1998 model year. Even without the "345hp" package these cars were already making 345-350hp right off the GM assembly line. So adding the dual/dual & Blackwing only made it better, just as would be the case with any of the aftermarket catbacks and air lids.