G8 Pics on the Chicago Website
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,312
From: Aurora, IL
The 362 horsepower 6.0 V8 is the L76, which is a LS based engine - I don't know exactly what gives it the minor horsepower reduction from the 400 horse LS2.
L76 specs:
10.4:1 Compression Ratio (uses Regular Unleaded)
362 horsepower @ 5700 rpm
391 lb-ft torque @ 4400 rpm
So it's no slouch. I'm satisfied with it. More power than a Charger R/T in a lighter package with a better looking interior. Just make sure I can get all the options the Charger R/T has a.k.a I want that color screen to have nav like the Dodge boys can get.
L76 specs:
10.4:1 Compression Ratio (uses Regular Unleaded)
362 horsepower @ 5700 rpm
391 lb-ft torque @ 4400 rpm
So it's no slouch. I'm satisfied with it. More power than a Charger R/T in a lighter package with a better looking interior. Just make sure I can get all the options the Charger R/T has a.k.a I want that color screen to have nav like the Dodge boys can get.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,947
From: Springfield,OH. U.S.A.
Will the automatics have performace crippling torque management??
And will that give people an impression from tests that it's slower than the competition??
Will GM comment on this, or require mags to make a point about it in reviews??
And will that give people an impression from tests that it's slower than the competition??
Will GM comment on this, or require mags to make a point about it in reviews??
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 214
From: Dallas, TX
90rocz,
I don't think that's anything to be too concerned about - nearly everything has torque management in one form or another these days - some kind of software code that retards timing, or some other way of dialing back the power for just a second, to make shifts either smoother or easier on the driveline. And I don't recall it crippling performance or making a car look slower in magazine tests than it is in real life.
e.g. the LS1 F-bodies have it, and they still haul ***. And so does the Charger R/T, and likewise, it moves out. Pretty sure the GTO had it too, and numbers weren't a problem for that car. The Mazdaspeed3 has a fairly elaborate system with different maximum turbo boost psi allowed in different gears. I think my BMW has it too.
Is there a particular example of torque management type software crippling a car and making it look bad next to its competition that you are referring to?
I don't think that's anything to be too concerned about - nearly everything has torque management in one form or another these days - some kind of software code that retards timing, or some other way of dialing back the power for just a second, to make shifts either smoother or easier on the driveline. And I don't recall it crippling performance or making a car look slower in magazine tests than it is in real life.
e.g. the LS1 F-bodies have it, and they still haul ***. And so does the Charger R/T, and likewise, it moves out. Pretty sure the GTO had it too, and numbers weren't a problem for that car. The Mazdaspeed3 has a fairly elaborate system with different maximum turbo boost psi allowed in different gears. I think my BMW has it too.
Is there a particular example of torque management type software crippling a car and making it look bad next to its competition that you are referring to?
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 214
From: Dallas, TX
And a cam
I did some more digging, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the L76 has a great flowing set of heads and intake manifold on it that the LS2 guys have been drooling over....... the power reduction must come from a small cam? Ponder that for a bit and think what this thing might be capable of with a simple cam/valvesprings kit 
Last edited by TTopJohn; Feb 10, 2007 at 06:12 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
And I'm beginning to think that there's a reason I'm having problems finding pictures of it. (Viewable in the G8 video link on here)trouble finding pictures of the back end? they are everywhere...
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/s...d.php?p=918063
i love the rear end myself.. better than the front imo.... i can understand some people don't like the clear-lense taillights.. (euros, altezzas, whatever you call them) but i think they fit this car very well and it looks great
besides the taillights i don't know why anyone would say that "can't stand" the back end... i can understand not loving it.. but it's hardly a divisive design where it's a deal breaker or something
Last edited by FS3800; Feb 10, 2007 at 09:35 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
And a cam I did some more digging, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the L76 has a great flowing set of heads and intake manifold on it that the LS2 guys have been drooling over....... the power reduction must come from a small cam? Ponder that for a bit and think what this thing might be capable of with a simple cam/valvesprings kit
I did some more digging, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the L76 has a great flowing set of heads and intake manifold on it that the LS2 guys have been drooling over....... the power reduction must come from a small cam? Ponder that for a bit and think what this thing might be capable of with a simple cam/valvesprings kit See here: http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...ads/index.html
Basically, the L92 heads are designed around the LS7 units.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
That it does, but it shouldn't reduce the horsepower. There's an Australian variant of the L76 called the L98. The difference between teh L76 and the L98 is that the L76 has Active Fuel Management, and the L98 does not. And they are rated at the same power level, according to this http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=44651
To summarize, L76 and L98 are almost identical, except for different sump and AFM is deleted on the L98.
Lounge Moderator
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 357
From: Mi Scusi!
Thanks for the pics of the back end! I must've gotten a bad idea of it from the glimpses in that video posted. That doesn't look bad at all.
(I was just doing google image searches for "pontiac g8 back" and "pontiac g8 rear" with no luck before)
(I was just doing google image searches for "pontiac g8 back" and "pontiac g8 rear" with no luck before)
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 214
From: Dallas, TX
Speaking of the different sump, has anyone noticed that HUGE oil capacity this thing (The L76) has? Maybe I just haven't been following developments as closely as I should be, as I don't know what the LS2's oil capacity is - but the L76 is listed at 8.9 quarts! For comparison, I overfill my LS1 by half a quart when I put 6 in. And I thought my 740 had a large capacity, but it only runs 8 quarts. It's a small detail, but adn 8.9 quart capacity bodes very well for long term durability and safely extending oil change intervals.
Last edited by TTopJohn; Feb 11, 2007 at 09:23 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Yeah, I'd be interested to see how the cam specs of the L76 and LS2 compare.
Just a word on the LS2 vs L76. The LS2 is in it's swan song as GM's performance V8. To be replaced by something better. As GM gets more RWD cars online, we'll see larger displacement, clean running, fuel efficient V8's , just like the L76, as the prime V8, essentially replacing the 5.3.
Just a word on the LS2 vs L76. The LS2 is in it's swan song as GM's performance V8. To be replaced by something better. As GM gets more RWD cars online, we'll see larger displacement, clean running, fuel efficient V8's , just like the L76, as the prime V8, essentially replacing the 5.3.