96_Camaro_B4C

Hahaha, well, maybe not that. I too am a bit puzzled by the choice of LT1, but I'll live with it. Two different applications. A Vette is far lighter and more aerodynamic (both in terms of .Cd number and total frontal area) than a Camaro, so it isn't that much of a stretch, unless the C7 takes a step backward in weight and/or aero. We don't know the top gear or rear axle ratios yet, but I'll be a bit shocked if the new car doesn't come in around 28 mpg+ for the highway rating. Clearly we know it will be 27 or more.Actually, the ratings changed for MY2008. 18/28 was the rating for '99 Corvettes with the six speed manual, which has been revised to 16/26. 4 spd automatics were rated at 17/25, which has been revised to 15/23. Compare Old and New MPG Estimates

SSCamaro99_3

i do not get the uproar over the engine designation. Assuming the first L is required (GM has been doing it back to the 60's), what would you have liked to se instead of LT.

LA - unavailable (Chrysler has LA used, might get sued)
LB -
LC
LD
LE
LF
LG - already used in GM I think
LH
LI
LJ
LK
LL - used as well I think
LM - used
LN
LO
LP
LQ - used
LR
LU
LV
LW
LX - Chrysler would probably be unhappy
LY - used
LZ

Not many of those are standouts.

JeremyNYR

I didn't expect what I posted to be considered an uproar, I just said I was surprised they would choose it. However, you did just demonstrate that there were plenty of other letter choices (or they could've gone with L##, like the L69, L89 or L98). The only reason LT and LS stand out more than say LK now is because we assiciate them with the engines they represent. Even arbitrarily choosing to start with LT, I think only LT1, LT4, and LT5 would be associated with a previous engine by many customers. The only downside to using LT1 again for me personally is that now my 95 LT1 engine is gonna be considered the "crappy LT1" and not just by rude LSx snobs this time! (and the big block LT1 crowd looks realllly old now!)

Eric77TA

Do you mean the 1970-1972 LT-1? That's a 350 small block, also. Or is there a big block LT1 I've not heard of?

Chewbacca

Agreed, but I just knew that the LSx fanboys would be in full freak out mode when this went public. All that Gen 2 LT1 smack talk has come back to haunt them. Karma is a bitch.

Anyway... LS3, LS6, LS7 were all recycled designations too.

Hell, WS6 was used on Grand Am and Grand Prix models as well.


GM has a loooong history of reusing these designations / codes guys.

LOx was used on at least the LO3 (gag) 3rd gen cars and Caprices.

LNx was used on at least the LNF turbo fours.

HuJass

Even the different divisions used the same engine RPO codes. Probably not at the same time, though.
The Pontiac SD455 had the RPO code LS2.
And a Pontiac 2.5 I4 had the RPO code LS6.

TOO Z MAXX

LZ1 has a nice ring to it.

JeremyNYR

oops, i thought the 70's LT1 was a big block. my mistake.

we can do this forever, but LB9 was the code for 305 TPI engines in 3rd gens.

Koz

10 million hours of computer simulation and development...

...internet talks about RPO designations

99SilverSS

I was thinking LV1 would be interesting since it's the Gen V V8.

SSCamaro99_3

I was not specifically aiming at you, but on every website there seems to be a whole bunch of "why LT1!!!" sentiment that seems pointless. In 1993 the LT1 was a huge upgrade to the SBC world. Unfortunately it turned out to be a short lived engine. Caught between the relative simplicity and plentifullness of the traditional SBC, and the wide evolutionary jump to the LS platform.

I was working from memeory and quickly to illustrate my point.

Exactly my point.

JeremyNYR

SSCamaro99_3 and Koz
Sorry my post didn't interest you. Maybe some of your posts don't interest me either, but it would be rude and counterproductive for me to make an issue of it in a public forum. As you can see, it just makes the conversation to continue in the direction you don't care for.

8cylinders>4

There are way too many people around here (everywhere) concerned about an RPO code. GM probably went with what they did because of a lack of options, You name it, some other engine or option probably already has that (insert here) RPO designation. Stop whining like babies

jg95z28

What if there is only one version of the LT1 and AFM is standard with both the automatic and manual versions?

Jerry502

correct me if I'm wrong, I only see one picture and that "Intake" looks more like a shroud than an actual intake???