This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The contents of the General Motors LT engine page were merged into General Motors small-block engine on April 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Some more stuff should be said of the LT1's reverse flow cooling. and a further expansion of ls1 stuff needs to be done. -- Ultrapop1 01:48, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
The first paragraph makes it sound like GM didn't have a smallblock before 1970. this needs to be corrected or clarified.-- Pqdave 16:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Much clearer, good job. -- Pqdave 15:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It looks like the GM Small-Block engine page and this one have a lot of overlap. The Small Block page is already as unwieldy as it is—can someone move the information over here and appropriately link in? -- Milkmandan 22:51, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
The LT1 and LT4 are readily modified to increase their horsepower, and many owners do so. I believe mention of this aspect would be beneficial, especially considering the rather thorough existing discussion of rated horsepower. The mention of the poorly designed intake and exhaust is true, but seems to detract from the performance aspects of the LT engine applications, and a counterpoint seems appropriate. But, I don't want to be too specific or off-topic. I think something like the below text is a good start, but I would appreciate feedback or editing clean-up, of course:
-- new text added... It has already been noted that the LT engine's reverse cooling system enables high compression, and the factory exhaust system and air inlet systems are not well optimized for performance. The intake manifolds and cylinder head castings are capable of supporting much higher horsepower than factory-equipped engines produced. Even more readily than the typical Gen 1 small block, these aspects of the LT1 and LT4 enable their horsepower to be significantly increased by the addition of high-performance air intake ducting and exhaust systems. Further, upgrading the cylinder head porting and camshaft design with appropriate supporting modifications can enable these engines to produce in excess of 400 naturally aspirated horsepower at the rear wheels, or about 500 horsepower at the flywheel. --
Sources: Various documented engine builds with dyno graphs and race timeslips were reviewed on discussion groups such as camaroz28.com, and the unofficial Z28 forums. The 400 HP number is conservative, especially for the LT4. Drivetrain losses of 15 to 20% are commonly accepted, so with the conservative 400HP number, 500 HP at the crankshaft is a very feasable number.
Example engine build refrence for HP capability: http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/4496_500_hp_na_chevrolet_lt1_engine/index.html
Example reference documenting factory cylinder head capability: http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/4606_chevrolet_lt1_engine_info/index.html
Response to above comment from user User:192.197.71.189|192.197.71.189, for the purpose of addressing the discrediting nature of that comment:
I have a documented personal LT1 F body build with with measured, SAE corrected 417 HP AT THE WHEELS. The engine was built using a factory block and heads, so a 'whole new engine' is certainly not required with 'the right build' to achieve 400 flywheel HP from the LT1. Far from it. Porting the heads was required, but they are factory pieces.
last time i checked the 5.0L was dropped for the 4.6L in prelude to ford's fears about the Generation II engines and emissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulielmi2002 ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
there should be something mentioned that the 4.6L NorthStar evolved from the LT5. i know that this is said in the 4.6L northstar section and perhapse something needs to be said about this in the LT5 section with some links. Gulielmi2002 ( talk) 20:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
ok i have added the detail. i like it because it makes you aware that the LT5 wasn't just some one time thing that it infact lives on in basic design in the Northstar engines. i figured out how to do the links and it links directly to the development section of the Northstar engine series. Gulielmi2002 ( talk) 16:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be added here that one of the differences with gen 2 and gen one is that the gen one is a 2 piece rear main seal crank, and the gen 2 is a one piece rear main seal crank. mainly mark a bump up on the differences on the generations in the engines, also on trasnmistions since the gen 2 started getting electronic controled auto transmission for the 4l60e. derek v —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.192.10.50 ( talk) 03:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
the Gen I's after 1986 were all one piece rear main seals. in fact the cranks used in the LT1 will fit nicely into an 1986 to 1996 Gen I 305's and 350's. Gulielmi2002 ( talk) 15:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
There is absolutely no relationship between the LT5 and Northstar. If you have references please post. This 2nd undo is, in Wikipedia terms, a CHALLENGE to the facts of your post. Also notice the template at the top of the article "This article does not cite any references or sources."
Please see the Wikipedia article on citing sources thanks, Toneron2 ( talk) 03:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
sourse has been posted. the problem is that it is mostly true. it's not that the northstar is a smaller version of the LT5 but does take much of its design from the LT5. it's like saying that the BBCs aren't related to SBCs. in the case of BBCs they share little from the SBCs besides distributors. but look at the history of the BBC you will see that they desend from the W engines which desend directly from the SBC. the W engines have characteristics that are of both SBCs and BBC and some that are unique to the W engines. in this way the SBCs are the ancestors to the BBCs. you can use the LS engine for an other example. looking that the LS engines and the SBCs you would think that they have little to nothing in common, but look a the history they do. the SBCs gave rise to the 90 degree V6 in this case the 4.3L V6 derived from the 350. in the late 80's and early 90's GM wanted to replace the 4.3L with an improved V6 but based on 4.3L with modern improvements. a swedish designer came up with this new protype engine name it the venture V6. the project was dropped but the design of the venture V6 lived on in the LS engines. looking at the blocks of the venture V6 and the LS engines, the LS engines look like the venture V6 with two added cyclinders (reference from an article from hot rod mag early 2000's). the point is GM rarely makes an engine from scratch. Cadilac did the same to the LT5. redused the size, made changes to make it cheaper to mass produce (cost effective), and added some modern improvements all these changes to fit their needs. Gulielmi2002 ( talk) 15:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Gulielmi2002 ( talk) 23:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Another example. By your logic the engine in the Cosworth Vega led to the Quad 4 which led to the Ecotec - they are all GM DOHC inline-4 engines. This could not be further from the truth. The engine in the Cosworth Vega was a Vega engine topped by a Cosworth DOHC head - designed specifically for a particular, high-performance purpose, limited edition option. The Quad 4 was a completely clean-sheet design created as a higher performance but mass-market application. The Ecotec evolved from a Opel designed SOHC engine which debuted in 1979, again for mass market application. The Cosworth Vega has more similarities with the ZR-1 C4 in terms of purpose. The Quad 4 is a function more of politics - although a great engine. The Ecotec and Northstar have similar purposes (although one for compact & midsize cars vs. large luxury cars) but both intended for high volume production. The LT-5 (and Cosworth Vega) were never intended as such. Toneron2 ( talk) 01:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
today, such as the "Premium V8" series ("Northstar" and "Aurora") and the Gen IIIs." i think that the wording needs to be changed to reflect from all of the above. perhapse it needs to say that the LT5 was a major design influence for the Northstar. Gulielmi2002 ( talk) 05:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The contents of the General Motors LT engine page were merged into General Motors small-block engine on April 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Some more stuff should be said of the LT1's reverse flow cooling. and a further expansion of ls1 stuff needs to be done. -- Ultrapop1 01:48, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
The first paragraph makes it sound like GM didn't have a smallblock before 1970. this needs to be corrected or clarified.-- Pqdave 16:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Much clearer, good job. -- Pqdave 15:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It looks like the GM Small-Block engine page and this one have a lot of overlap. The Small Block page is already as unwieldy as it is—can someone move the information over here and appropriately link in? -- Milkmandan 22:51, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
The LT1 and LT4 are readily modified to increase their horsepower, and many owners do so. I believe mention of this aspect would be beneficial, especially considering the rather thorough existing discussion of rated horsepower. The mention of the poorly designed intake and exhaust is true, but seems to detract from the performance aspects of the LT engine applications, and a counterpoint seems appropriate. But, I don't want to be too specific or off-topic. I think something like the below text is a good start, but I would appreciate feedback or editing clean-up, of course:
-- new text added... It has already been noted that the LT engine's reverse cooling system enables high compression, and the factory exhaust system and air inlet systems are not well optimized for performance. The intake manifolds and cylinder head castings are capable of supporting much higher horsepower than factory-equipped engines produced. Even more readily than the typical Gen 1 small block, these aspects of the LT1 and LT4 enable their horsepower to be significantly increased by the addition of high-performance air intake ducting and exhaust systems. Further, upgrading the cylinder head porting and camshaft design with appropriate supporting modifications can enable these engines to produce in excess of 400 naturally aspirated horsepower at the rear wheels, or about 500 horsepower at the flywheel. --
Sources: Various documented engine builds with dyno graphs and race timeslips were reviewed on discussion groups such as camaroz28.com, and the unofficial Z28 forums. The 400 HP number is conservative, especially for the LT4. Drivetrain losses of 15 to 20% are commonly accepted, so with the conservative 400HP number, 500 HP at the crankshaft is a very feasable number.
Example engine build refrence for HP capability: http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/4496_500_hp_na_chevrolet_lt1_engine/index.html
Example reference documenting factory cylinder head capability: http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/4606_chevrolet_lt1_engine_info/index.html
Response to above comment from user User:192.197.71.189|192.197.71.189, for the purpose of addressing the discrediting nature of that comment:
I have a documented personal LT1 F body build with with measured, SAE corrected 417 HP AT THE WHEELS. The engine was built using a factory block and heads, so a 'whole new engine' is certainly not required with 'the right build' to achieve 400 flywheel HP from the LT1. Far from it. Porting the heads was required, but they are factory pieces.
last time i checked the 5.0L was dropped for the 4.6L in prelude to ford's fears about the Generation II engines and emissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulielmi2002 ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
there should be something mentioned that the 4.6L NorthStar evolved from the LT5. i know that this is said in the 4.6L northstar section and perhapse something needs to be said about this in the LT5 section with some links. Gulielmi2002 ( talk) 20:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
ok i have added the detail. i like it because it makes you aware that the LT5 wasn't just some one time thing that it infact lives on in basic design in the Northstar engines. i figured out how to do the links and it links directly to the development section of the Northstar engine series. Gulielmi2002 ( talk) 16:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be added here that one of the differences with gen 2 and gen one is that the gen one is a 2 piece rear main seal crank, and the gen 2 is a one piece rear main seal crank. mainly mark a bump up on the differences on the generations in the engines, also on trasnmistions since the gen 2 started getting electronic controled auto transmission for the 4l60e. derek v —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.192.10.50 ( talk) 03:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
the Gen I's after 1986 were all one piece rear main seals. in fact the cranks used in the LT1 will fit nicely into an 1986 to 1996 Gen I 305's and 350's. Gulielmi2002 ( talk) 15:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
There is absolutely no relationship between the LT5 and Northstar. If you have references please post. This 2nd undo is, in Wikipedia terms, a CHALLENGE to the facts of your post. Also notice the template at the top of the article "This article does not cite any references or sources."
Please see the Wikipedia article on citing sources thanks, Toneron2 ( talk) 03:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
sourse has been posted. the problem is that it is mostly true. it's not that the northstar is a smaller version of the LT5 but does take much of its design from the LT5. it's like saying that the BBCs aren't related to SBCs. in the case of BBCs they share little from the SBCs besides distributors. but look at the history of the BBC you will see that they desend from the W engines which desend directly from the SBC. the W engines have characteristics that are of both SBCs and BBC and some that are unique to the W engines. in this way the SBCs are the ancestors to the BBCs. you can use the LS engine for an other example. looking that the LS engines and the SBCs you would think that they have little to nothing in common, but look a the history they do. the SBCs gave rise to the 90 degree V6 in this case the 4.3L V6 derived from the 350. in the late 80's and early 90's GM wanted to replace the 4.3L with an improved V6 but based on 4.3L with modern improvements. a swedish designer came up with this new protype engine name it the venture V6. the project was dropped but the design of the venture V6 lived on in the LS engines. looking at the blocks of the venture V6 and the LS engines, the LS engines look like the venture V6 with two added cyclinders (reference from an article from hot rod mag early 2000's). the point is GM rarely makes an engine from scratch. Cadilac did the same to the LT5. redused the size, made changes to make it cheaper to mass produce (cost effective), and added some modern improvements all these changes to fit their needs. Gulielmi2002 ( talk) 15:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Gulielmi2002 ( talk) 23:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Another example. By your logic the engine in the Cosworth Vega led to the Quad 4 which led to the Ecotec - they are all GM DOHC inline-4 engines. This could not be further from the truth. The engine in the Cosworth Vega was a Vega engine topped by a Cosworth DOHC head - designed specifically for a particular, high-performance purpose, limited edition option. The Quad 4 was a completely clean-sheet design created as a higher performance but mass-market application. The Ecotec evolved from a Opel designed SOHC engine which debuted in 1979, again for mass market application. The Cosworth Vega has more similarities with the ZR-1 C4 in terms of purpose. The Quad 4 is a function more of politics - although a great engine. The Ecotec and Northstar have similar purposes (although one for compact & midsize cars vs. large luxury cars) but both intended for high volume production. The LT-5 (and Cosworth Vega) were never intended as such. Toneron2 ( talk) 01:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
today, such as the "Premium V8" series ("Northstar" and "Aurora") and the Gen IIIs." i think that the wording needs to be changed to reflect from all of the above. perhapse it needs to say that the LT5 was a major design influence for the Northstar. Gulielmi2002 ( talk) 05:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)