I think it's naive to assume that it would be cheaper for GM to produce the same block then to switch to a lighter larger-bore block. If the block is truely lighter a significantly smaller amout of material is used on every casting. Since everyting is now computer driven, it probably didn't cost to much to to "re-tool," besides, aren't the blocks cast in sand?

It's also a sure way to get those with LS-1s to upgrade to an LS-2 vehicle, once it's labeled as "different" and "better" and "newer"

 

3V heads are suposed 2 be reserved for the 6.3L V8 in the Z06 that should be out in another year or two. Oh ya its supposed to have 500hp 2

 

That's right...I forgot.

 

I agree that it would have been a good idea to make the two so they can swap parts, but I was referring to the expense of engineering the parts. It can often be quicker to start from scratch then to try and incorporate new attributes into an already existing design that may have limitations to what is planned.

 

Guys, don't get too far out on this yet. Since the block is very similar to the current 6.0L block(bore spacing is the same, some sensors changed locations) and the heads are heavily based in the LS6 design, current cam specs are going to have similar results to current larger bore LS1/LS6 motors. I think we are going to see the LS2 as a very nice improvment over the current LS1/LS6. I am excited about it as I have a C6 Vert in my near future, but also because some of this stuff is going to work for those of us with current 6.0L motors in our GM trucks.

Todd

 

Here is a quick rundown on the specs -

Displacement (liters/cu in/cc): 6.0 / 364 / 5970

Bore & stroke (in / mm): 4 x 3.62 / 101.6 x 92

Block material: cast aluminum

Cylinder head material: cast aluminum

Valvetrain: OHV, 2 valves per cylinder

Fuel delivery: SFI (sequential fuel injection)

Compression ratio: 10.9:1

Horsepower: (hp / kw @ rpm): 400 / 298 @ 6000

Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 400 @ 4400

Recommended fuel: 93 octane recommended, not required

Maximum engine speed (rpm): 6500

Estimated fuel economy (mpg city / hwy / combined):
19 / 28 / 23 (man) & 18 / 25 / 21 (auto)

I currently have a pre-order in for one. It should be a fun ride when it comes out this summer

Tom

 

I second that.

To be honest, I thought that GM had pushed the OHV pushrod 2V/cyl as far as they could go. (and be compliant with emmisioins and meet reliability requirements.) I'm impressed that they can even achieve that much power with such little valves. The 3 valve will surely be a monster. I can't wait.

 

Beyond that, I seem to remember Ford spent something like 1 Billion to get the modular motor program going and didn't GM only spend something like 1/2 that amount to get the LS series motors going? If GM gets better power than somebody who spent twice as much, why would they want to change much.

Todd

 

Here here.

I bet if they went with a more extravigant valvetrain everyone would accuse them of dropping a cadilac motor in a vette.

 

GM has already published an article on the 3 valve engine in a SAE article last September.
http://www.sae.org/automag/techbrief...1-111-9-26.pdf

Also, I was talking to a couple of engineers on the C6 project and they would not confirm that the LS2 parts would work on the LS1 but they did say all the bolt holes would align for the block and heads.

Regarding the C6 Z06 engine, they mentioned it would more than compete with ANY production car including the Viper and Ford GT. When we asked how much HP they would only say 'you name the engine and we can compete.'