

|
07-27-2008, 09:06 AM
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SE MI
Posts: 976
|
Why 2 V8s just 22hp apart?
Doesnt make any sense to me.
__________________
Was TA Jack
2008 black Mustang GT Bullitt
2007 Silverado Classic 2500 CCLB LT3 Dmax/Ally
2007 Pontiac Grand Prix
|
|
|
07-27-2008, 10:28 AM
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 2,695
|
Two thoughts (no direct knowledge):
1) Slightly more fuel efficiency with the 400 HP motor so that when combined with the auto, it doesn't get hit with the gas guzzler tax.
2) Slightly lower powerband (ie...better low-mid range power/torque) with the 400 HP motor, improving the "feel" of the car with the automatic.
Both of those goals could be accomplished with the same basic motor, but with a slightly longer intake runner package and different cam profile on the 400 HP motor - though I have no idea what they actually did.
|
|
|
07-27-2008, 10:32 AM
|
#3
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 820
|
They wanted a V8 with active fuel management (AFM), but for some reason AFM will only work with an auto.
Therefore the manual will come with the LS3, and the auto will come with the L99 - basically an LS3 with AFM.
Also, for what ever reason the L99 has slightly less power than the LS3.
|
|
|
07-27-2008, 11:04 AM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 2,695
|
That makes perfect sense (come to think of it, seems I read that somewhere), and youl almost certainly know a lot more about it than I do.
Bob
|
|
|
07-27-2008, 11:16 AM
|
#5
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 193
|
could it just be a rating and the actually hp numbers are close? GM has underated motors before when in reality they are the same power
__________________
1989 Iroc-Z
"My Ride"
401 Twin Turbo
10.37 at 134.3 on 10 psi
|
|
|
07-27-2008, 01:04 PM
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 820
|
If GM had the ability to fudge numbers like they used to they would have most likely put them at the same rating. However because of SAE certified ratings, they came up with those different hp numbers for the LS3 and L99.
|
|
|
07-27-2008, 01:42 PM
|
#7
|
|
Registered User
Premium Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 8,468
|
Automatics generally have more drivetrain loss too. I wonder if that had anything to do with the ratings.
|
|
|
07-27-2008, 01:52 PM
|
#8
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 193
|
i think the engines are rated on engine dynos so its measuring actual crank losses and trans effects are not seen there
__________________
1989 Iroc-Z
"My Ride"
401 Twin Turbo
10.37 at 134.3 on 10 psi
|
|
|
07-27-2008, 02:01 PM
|
#9
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kilgore TX 75662
Posts: 3,082
|
right, they are rated at the engine, not at the wheels.
I betcha it has something to do with AFM limiting the RPM.
__________________
ChestonPhillips@yahoo.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Cosby
Now we're speculating on the speculation....all the while, throwing more speculation into the mix. Is one speculation (or "most realistic guess") any better than the other speculation?
|
|
|
|
07-27-2008, 02:08 PM
|
#10
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SE MI
Posts: 976
|
Regular fuel vs premium would make a difference also. Reminds me of my 96 LT4 Collector Edition Vette where you could only get the 6 speed with the 330hp LT4. So the L99 with AFM is only available with the auto and the LS3 is only available with the stick.
__________________
Was TA Jack
2008 black Mustang GT Bullitt
2007 Silverado Classic 2500 CCLB LT3 Dmax/Ally
2007 Pontiac Grand Prix
|
|
|
07-27-2008, 02:27 PM
|
#11
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 625
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Cosby
Two thoughts (no direct knowledge):
1) Slightly more fuel efficiency with the 400 HP motor so that when combined with the auto, it doesn't get hit with the gas guzzler tax.
2) Slightly lower powerband (ie...better low-mid range power/torque) with the 400 HP motor, improving the "feel" of the car with the automatic.
Both of those goals could be accomplished with the same basic motor, but with a slightly longer intake runner package and different cam profile on the 400 HP motor - though I have no idea what they actually did.
|
ya i dont think the intake is going to be any different. The L76 in the G8 has AFM and its pretty much the same engine other than being a 6.0 vs a 6.2 and it too has the same intake as the LS3. A major difference besides having SLIGHTLY lower compression giving it the ability to use lower octane fuel, though, is that the L76 has vs. the LS3 is GM cut corners and put solid (heavy) valves in the L76, which reduced it's ability to rev (which the afm probably hindered anyways). The L99 im thinkin has the solid valves as well, which could be a factor in changing out the cam and longevity of the springs.
|
|
|
07-27-2008, 10:33 PM
|
#12
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: TX Med Ctr
Posts: 3,194
|
What I have been told, not by a GM engineer though, is that with AFM the special lifters limit both revs and valve lift. If that is true then they probably had to limit engine speed and cam profile and found out that they could save a few dollars per motor with solid valves in the L99 and not loose any performance.
Or since this is all speculation anyway, maybe they use the hollow valves anyway but just limit the cam lift and or ramps and the engine speed. Who knows. But it is probably not the case that it is simply engine speed that accounts for the 20 HP since they are rated at the same RPM anyway.
|
|
|
07-28-2008, 04:54 PM
|
#13
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Confederate States of America
Posts: 399
|
Heck during the 3rd gen days Chevy had 2 different power outputs for the auto and the manual with the 5.0 motor.
__________________
Forget gold, the next currency will be lead!
|
|
|
08-03-2008, 05:32 AM
|
#14
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 193
|
It is all about making sure that the Camaro does not have a Gas Guzzler tax which would kill sales. I am sure if the GG tax was not a factor they would only offer the LS3. My guess is with a computer tune you can get the same performance with the auto and L99 as with the manual LS3
|
|
|
08-03-2008, 02:35 PM
|
#15
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 625
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruettfan
It is all about making sure that the Camaro does not have a Gas Guzzler tax which would kill sales. I am sure if the GG tax was not a factor they would only offer the LS3. My guess is with a computer tune you can get the same performance with the auto and L99 as with the manual LS3
|
maybe. but im sure mod vs. mod the LS3 > L99.
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59 PM.
|