It's Official: 2011 Ford Mustang GT has 5.0-liter V8
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
We will do our best to make you feel welcomed.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
http://www.ls1.com/forums/showthread...=132998&page=2 (see post #24 - it quotes from Will Handzel's book on the GenIII)
... I still chuckle at Internet speculation that LS6 had 450hp or was just an LS1 with different ECM calibration.
Finally, the Beacon of Reality cuts through the fog. It’s not 450hp, but it’s a hell of a lot more than a different ECM calibration. LS6’s very core is unique. The LS1 had had less-than-optimum high-rpm oil control, so GMPT set-out to improve that with a special block. It was revised at the base of the cylinders to improve "bay-to-bay" breathing. As the pistons move up and down, they force air in-and-out of the spaces (or "bays") beneath them. At high rpm, this reciprocating air flow is violent and really whips up the oil. While the LS1 block has some machined openings between bays, the LS6 block has larger "windows" at the base of each cylinder that better accommodate bay-to-bay breathing. The positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system was also changed. Taking a page out of the LT5’s book, the LS6 gets a valley-mounted oil separator. This both reduces oil aeration and simplifies the PCV system. All this improves oil control, reduces oil consumption, reduces parasitic power loss and contributes to the LS6’s 500 additional, usable rpm.
http://www.c5registry.com/zo6/hib/page3.htm
Finally, the Beacon of Reality cuts through the fog. It’s not 450hp, but it’s a hell of a lot more than a different ECM calibration. LS6’s very core is unique. The LS1 had had less-than-optimum high-rpm oil control, so GMPT set-out to improve that with a special block. It was revised at the base of the cylinders to improve "bay-to-bay" breathing. As the pistons move up and down, they force air in-and-out of the spaces (or "bays") beneath them. At high rpm, this reciprocating air flow is violent and really whips up the oil. While the LS1 block has some machined openings between bays, the LS6 block has larger "windows" at the base of each cylinder that better accommodate bay-to-bay breathing. The positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system was also changed. Taking a page out of the LT5’s book, the LS6 gets a valley-mounted oil separator. This both reduces oil aeration and simplifies the PCV system. All this improves oil control, reduces oil consumption, reduces parasitic power loss and contributes to the LS6’s 500 additional, usable rpm.
http://www.c5registry.com/zo6/hib/page3.htm
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/new-ls...questions.html
... but there has to be an explanation why the 01/02 LS1s were quicker than the original LS1s, right?
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
EDIT: I was always under the impression that the biggest difference between the '01-'02 LS1 and the LS6 was the heads.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Over the 98-02 years you had changes in intake, cam, exhaust manifolds and heads. My 99 Z28 auto ran 101.80 for its fastest trap stock. My 01 WS6 M6 ran 109.46mph trap stock (unusually high for a stock LS1). There were huge variences of the same type of car in the same year. But the later versions were stronger overall when compared to the 98-99.
So did GM underrate the LS1? No, not the original, although, power did steadily creep up for the 01/02 model LS1s.
PS The 2010 320 hp Mustangs trap at 104mph... similar to the original LS1 Camaro, which had similar weight to the current Mustang.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Yes, there is. The 2001 and 2002 LS1s in the F-bodies came with the LS6 intake manifold. It didn't have anything to do with the block, as almost all 01's and 02's dyno stronger than the '98-'00 even though your article states the LS6 block was only placed in about 1 of every 4 cars in 2002. The common wisdom here is that while having the LS6 block is more unique, it doesn't provide for any performance gain.
EDIT: I was always under the impression that the biggest difference between the '01-'02 LS1 and the LS6 was the heads.
EDIT: I was always under the impression that the biggest difference between the '01-'02 LS1 and the LS6 was the heads.
That's all.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
I had an LT1 Camaro rated at 275 HP. It put down 223 to the wheels.
The 1998 LS1 Z28 was rated at 305 HP yet would still routinely put down 280-290 HP on a dyno. So the "rating" between LT1 and LS1 went up 30 but the power to the wheels went up 60-70? It doesn't quite add up.
I suspect that what someone else said earlier was true. GM claimed that power was down in the F-car compared to C5 Corvette due to "detuning", exhaust restrictions, etc. - but that was largely bunk.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Yes, there is. The 2001 and 2002 LS1s in the F-bodies came with the LS6 intake manifold. It didn't have anything to do with the block, as almost all 01's and 02's dyno stronger than the '98-'00 even though your article states the LS6 block was only placed in about 1 of every 4 cars in 2002. The common wisdom here is that while having the LS6 block is more unique, it doesn't provide for any performance gain.
EDIT: I was always under the impression that the biggest difference between the '01-'02 LS1 and the LS6 was the heads.
EDIT: I was always under the impression that the biggest difference between the '01-'02 LS1 and the LS6 was the heads.
LS6 also got a different cam to go with the better heads, and some of the valve gear is nicer (sodium-filled valves, for example).
Camaro (and Trans Am) had the exact same engine, with a slightly more restrictive intake and exhaust. Despite ratings that varied from 305-325 over the years) in reality it was never more than 10hp behind the Corvette of the same year, and dyno results back that up.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
The 2010 mustang is 315, not 320 and puts down 275 ish to the ground. It runs 101-102 at best
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
I'm not implying it's mainly due to the block. I did state it was due to many improvements and specifically stated what those enhancements were. Yes all LS1s got the LS6 manifold, which partly explains the overall increase. The block was another as was the different PCM mapping. All things combined gave the 01/02 LS1s improved performance over the 98/99 models.
That's all.
That's all.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
All correct. They also changed the cam in 2001, to the "truck cam" which is slightly less aggressive than the '97-2000 cam. In addition to a couple more horsepower, it also improved very low RPM drivability. A 2001-2002 M6 car will loaf along in 6th at 800 rpm (~40mph) with no problem, and even accelerate away from there (slowly) without lugging; a '97-2000 car won't do it so smoothly.
LS6 also got a different cam to go with the better heads, and some of the valve gear is nicer (sodium-filled valves, for example).
The 345hp rating given in the Corvette in 1997 was pretty accurate, as was the 350hp given when they added the aforementioned intake manifold and changed the cam in 2001.
Camaro (and Trans Am) had the exact same engine, with a slightly more restrictive intake and exhaust. Despite ratings that varied from 305-325 over the years) in reality it was never more than 10hp behind the Corvette of the same year, and dyno results back that up.
LS6 also got a different cam to go with the better heads, and some of the valve gear is nicer (sodium-filled valves, for example).
The 345hp rating given in the Corvette in 1997 was pretty accurate, as was the 350hp given when they added the aforementioned intake manifold and changed the cam in 2001.
Camaro (and Trans Am) had the exact same engine, with a slightly more restrictive intake and exhaust. Despite ratings that varied from 305-325 over the years) in reality it was never more than 10hp behind the Corvette of the same year, and dyno results back that up.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 163
From: Tulsa,OK
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/index.html
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
) who did much better. 
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
The LS6 block is not any stronger than the LS1 block. The only difference is the addition of some windows for "improved bay-to-bay breathing" (and, of course, a change in casting number 
).
Given that information, I would suggest that if there is any difference in strength between the two blocks, it is negligible, and it is the LS1 block that is stronger.
).Given that information, I would suggest that if there is any difference in strength between the two blocks, it is negligible, and it is the LS1 block that is stronger.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,022
From: MD
The supercharged Cobras were underrated as well. Their dynos proved the 390HP rating to be VERY conservative, although trap speeds didn't back them up due to the additional weight and IRS.