Does anyone thing the LS2 is underrated?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Does anyone thing the LS2 is underrated?
Compared to the LS6, the LS2 will have 0.3L more displacement and a higher compression ratio of 10.9 vs the LS6 10.5.
Does anyone thing the LS2 is underrated???????
I'm going to guess the real HP is about 430HP, the the 6.0L in the SS concept had
LS2 ------- LS6
6.0L--------5.7L
400HP---- 405HP
400tq----- 400tq
10.9:1-----10.5:1
Does anyone thing the LS2 is underrated???????
I'm going to guess the real HP is about 430HP, the the 6.0L in the SS concept had
LS2 ------- LS6
6.0L--------5.7L
400HP---- 405HP
400tq----- 400tq
10.9:1-----10.5:1
Registered User
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,072
From: Lilburn, GA, USA
I have said for awhile now that think the LS2 will be under rated by a good deal, but again........................I don't have any proof to back that up.
As more info comes out, it does appear that it will have more power than the LS6. If the base C6 with the LS2 can turn a "significantly" quicker lap than a LS6 ZO6, which is 150 lbs lighter and rated slightly more, than the C6 must be underrated. I doubt the base C6 can out-handle a ZO6 so the time is not being reduced there.
I can't wait to see some dyno numbers or track times.
As more info comes out, it does appear that it will have more power than the LS6. If the base C6 with the LS2 can turn a "significantly" quicker lap than a LS6 ZO6, which is 150 lbs lighter and rated slightly more, than the C6 must be underrated. I doubt the base C6 can out-handle a ZO6 so the time is not being reduced there.
I can't wait to see some dyno numbers or track times.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,575
From: Arlington, Texas
I think I even read it somewhere where the number was downgraded so as not to "tick off" for lack of a better word, current Z06 owners, much the same way as the LS1 Fbods were underrated so as not to get too close to the C5.
But you're right....larger displacement+higher compression=less power? I don't think so.
I suppose in a year or two, they'll do some "tweak" to improve "efficiency" and rate the thing up to 430hp or so. Kind of like SLP's 345hp package for the SS that consisted of a lid and cat-back. Convienient that it was still 5hp less than the vette, but would still put down 320hp at the wheels, easy. Nice problem to have if you ask me
But you're right....larger displacement+higher compression=less power? I don't think so.
I suppose in a year or two, they'll do some "tweak" to improve "efficiency" and rate the thing up to 430hp or so. Kind of like SLP's 345hp package for the SS that consisted of a lid and cat-back. Convienient that it was still 5hp less than the vette, but would still put down 320hp at the wheels, easy. Nice problem to have if you ask me
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
I have said for awhile now that think the LS2 will be under rated by a good deal, but again........................I don't have any proof to back that up...
I have said for awhile now that think the LS2 will be under rated by a good deal, but again........................I don't have any proof to back that up...
Originally posted by CLEAN
I think I even read it somewhere where the number was downgraded so as not to "tick off" for lack of a better word, current Z06 owners, much the same way as the LS1 Fbods were underrated so as not to get too close to the C5.
But you're right....larger displacement+higher compression=less power? I don't think so.
I suppose in a year or two, they'll do some "tweak" to improve "efficiency" and rate the thing up to 430hp or so. Kind of like SLP's 345hp package for the SS that consisted of a lid and cat-back. Convienient that it was still 5hp less than the vette, but would still put down 320hp at the wheels, easy. Nice problem to have if you ask me
I think I even read it somewhere where the number was downgraded so as not to "tick off" for lack of a better word, current Z06 owners, much the same way as the LS1 Fbods were underrated so as not to get too close to the C5.
But you're right....larger displacement+higher compression=less power? I don't think so.
I suppose in a year or two, they'll do some "tweak" to improve "efficiency" and rate the thing up to 430hp or so. Kind of like SLP's 345hp package for the SS that consisted of a lid and cat-back. Convienient that it was still 5hp less than the vette, but would still put down 320hp at the wheels, easy. Nice problem to have if you ask me
The SLP package on the SS pretty much did nothing to increase horsepower. The advertized horsepower increase on the SLP was due more to rating the LS1 closer to it's actual horsepower than it was any increase from their parts.
The actual increase in with the SLP parts was less than 10 hp as I recall. Something easily verified in it's virturally identical performance numbers of regular Z28s of the same year.
Last edited by guionM; Jan 1, 2004 at 03:27 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,440
From: five-one-oh/nine-oh-nine
Originally posted by number77
i figure its making like 405 hp. remember the article we found earlier this year that stated it is now illegal to under/overrate a car by so much
i figure its making like 405 hp. remember the article we found earlier this year that stated it is now illegal to under/overrate a car by so much
Registered User
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,072
From: Lilburn, GA, USA
366 huh.............................that doesn't have the same ring as 350, 383, or even 346 or somthing like that. It seems so arbitrary but I guess we better get used to it because it will be in a lot of vehicles including a certain pony car.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,647
From: At car shows and cruise nights!
Yup. 
It does sound weird though. 346 and 366 don't sound as cool as all the Gen1 displacements or even the more popular bored/stroked combinations. Although, 366 is better than 346. I think 368 or 370 woulda sounded better. Lets see:
368 Z28, SS368.
370 Z28, SS370.
It does sound weird though. 346 and 366 don't sound as cool as all the Gen1 displacements or even the more popular bored/stroked combinations. Although, 366 is better than 346. I think 368 or 370 woulda sounded better. Lets see:
368 Z28, SS368.
370 Z28, SS370.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
I don't think GM really cares which displacements "sound cool". If it mattered, Ford would've built a modular 5.0 back in '96 instead of a 4.6 (281) 
Will the LS2 be underrated? I wouldn't go by compression ratio alone. The LT1 had a higher compression ratio than the LS1 and displaced about 4 cubic inches more, and I think we know the story there. It's all about how the heads flow, timing, etc. etc.
Will the LS2 be underrated? I wouldn't go by compression ratio alone. The LT1 had a higher compression ratio than the LS1 and displaced about 4 cubic inches more, and I think we know the story there. It's all about how the heads flow, timing, etc. etc.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
When this board came up with a "Things Gone Right" listing for the F4, one of the things we all really liked was the fact that the motors were so radically underrated.
GM underrates ALL of their motors. Maybe not by as much as the F-car LS1, but all of them are packing just a bit more heat than the General admits to.
LS2 will be no exception.
GM underrates ALL of their motors. Maybe not by as much as the F-car LS1, but all of them are packing just a bit more heat than the General admits to.
LS2 will be no exception.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 764
From: Crystal Falls, MI USA
Originally posted by PacerX
When this board came up with a "Things Gone Right" listing for the F4, one of the things we all really liked was the fact that the motors were so radically underrated.
When this board came up with a "Things Gone Right" listing for the F4, one of the things we all really liked was the fact that the motors were so radically underrated.
