SSR Engine Question
08-13-2003, 10:07 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
SSR Engine Question
Can someone that has some inside knowledge at GM tell me why GM went with the 300HP 5.3L in the SSR instead of the LS1 or 345HP 6.0L?
THe cost of manufactoring a 5.3,5.7, or 6.0L V8 is almost the same and GM makes an A4 that can handle the power of each.
cost of the truck can't be an issue either, with a base price of $42K I don't think another $500 to $1,000 would have stoped anyone from buying one.
THe cost of manufactoring a 5.3,5.7, or 6.0L V8 is almost the same and GM makes an A4 that can handle the power of each.
cost of the truck can't be an issue either, with a base price of $42K I don't think another $500 to $1,000 would have stoped anyone from buying one.
08-13-2003, 10:22 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,719
It probably has something to do with emissions. The CAGS on the M6 LS1s was done for emissions. Plus the bigger engine would probably increase the gas guzler tax. Won't 300hp make the SSR somewhat quick, or is it heavier then it looks?
08-13-2003, 10:37 PM
#5
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
Originally posted by 99blackSS
It probably has something to do with emissions. The CAGS on the M6 LS1s was done for emissions. Plus the bigger engine would probably increase the gas guzler tax. Won't 300hp make the SSR somewhat quick, or is it heavier then it looks?
It probably has something to do with emissions. The CAGS on the M6 LS1s was done for emissions. Plus the bigger engine would probably increase the gas guzler tax. Won't 300hp make the SSR somewhat quick, or is it heavier then it looks?
THe curb weight is 4764Lbs.
C&D clocked it at 7.0 sec. 0-60, 15.4 in the 1/4mi.
Silverado SS stats for comparison:
curb weight is 5240Lbs.
0-60 in 6.3 sec.
1/4mi. in 14.8 sec.
Last edited by Z28x; 08-13-2003 at 10:41 PM.
08-14-2003, 06:43 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Michigan's left coast
Posts: 2,405
My guess would be fuel economy (that, and not emissions, is the reason for the existance of CAGS). But, the SSR is such low-volume that I can't imagine it impacts GM's light-truck CAFE ratings by any significant amount, so it would have been great to see the LQ9 6.0 L in it. Or throw the LS1 in it - for $40K+, an aluminum block would have been nice.
08-14-2003, 08:02 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Center of the Automotive Universe
Posts: 18
There were several reasons why it couldn't happen. Production numbers on the LQ9 are limited, and they may not have had the ability to change that.
The SSR DOES have an aluminum block. This 5.3 (the LM4) is the same one used this year in the GMT360/370. The GMT800's continue with the iron-block LM7.
While the exterior dimensions of all the vortecs are about the same (therefore making it seem like any of them should drop in and go) the SSR's front end provided some very challenging issues with airflow/cooling that had to be resolved.
Just wait until 2005
The SSR DOES have an aluminum block. This 5.3 (the LM4) is the same one used this year in the GMT360/370. The GMT800's continue with the iron-block LM7.
While the exterior dimensions of all the vortecs are about the same (therefore making it seem like any of them should drop in and go) the SSR's front end provided some very challenging issues with airflow/cooling that had to be resolved.
Just wait until 2005
08-14-2003, 08:21 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,698
The SSR is built on a Trailblazer EXT platform. The EXT has a5.3L option from the beginning, so it was probaly much easier. Ford was able to skip crash testing with the Thunderbird because it was so similar to the LS...same engines and all. The SSR possibly fell in this catagory. Even though the 5.3 and 6.0 are the same size I believe different dispacements mean you have to do crash testing over. Also I would imagine alot of the computers and such carry straight over from the EXT, but would have to be totally replaced if they went to a 6.0L.
08-14-2003, 08:54 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Michigan's left coast
Posts: 2,405
Originally posted by BAD APPLE
The SSR DOES have an aluminum block. This 5.3 (the LM4) is the same one used this year in the GMT360/370. The GMT800's continue with the iron-block LM7.
The SSR DOES have an aluminum block. This 5.3 (the LM4) is the same one used this year in the GMT360/370. The GMT800's continue with the iron-block LM7.
While the exterior dimensions of all the vortecs are about the same (therefore making it seem like any of them should drop in and go) the SSR's front end provided some very challenging issues with airflow/cooling that had to be resolved.
Just wait until 2005
08-14-2003, 11:02 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Center of the Automotive Universe
Posts: 18
And yet more good info - that's a very valid reason to cut back on the HP (although I know damn well that this problem will probably be overcome by some company like Lingenfelter, using an inexpensive solution that probably wasn't implimented by GM because it would have hurt their gazillion-dollar profit margin).
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to see an SSR or 2 lined up at LPE's doorstep this fall. They make some very innovative, very desireable packages. However, these blown/stroked vehicles would not pass most of the cooling tests their production counterparts do. Not to say they aren't fine for 95% of the customers, just don't tow your boat up a mountain in Death Valley at 120deg!
They're going to get 400 HP and have the price cut down to $25K? Oh, I guess not. How 'bout enough power to at least keep up with a SRT-4 that's only half the cost? [/B][/QUOTE]
The power yes, the price we can only hope remains the same. This "shared" engine will debut in about 3 products the same year.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to see an SSR or 2 lined up at LPE's doorstep this fall. They make some very innovative, very desireable packages. However, these blown/stroked vehicles would not pass most of the cooling tests their production counterparts do. Not to say they aren't fine for 95% of the customers, just don't tow your boat up a mountain in Death Valley at 120deg!
They're going to get 400 HP and have the price cut down to $25K? Oh, I guess not. How 'bout enough power to at least keep up with a SRT-4 that's only half the cost? [/B][/QUOTE]
The power yes, the price we can only hope remains the same. This "shared" engine will debut in about 3 products the same year.
08-14-2003, 11:27 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: neverneverland
Posts: 854
Originally posted by BAD APPLE
The power yes, the price we can only hope remains the same. This "shared" engine will debut in about 3 products the same year. [/B]
The power yes, the price we can only hope remains the same. This "shared" engine will debut in about 3 products the same year. [/B]
08-14-2003, 11:37 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
Originally posted by Z28x
I doubt the emissions thing, THe Camaro had an LS1 and A4 and the silverado SS has the 345HP 6.0L and an A4.
THe curb weight is 4764Lbs.
C&D clocked it at 7.0 sec. 0-60, 15.4 in the 1/4mi.
Silverado SS stats for comparison:
curb weight is 5240Lbs.
0-60 in 6.3 sec.
1/4mi. in 14.8 sec.
I doubt the emissions thing, THe Camaro had an LS1 and A4 and the silverado SS has the 345HP 6.0L and an A4.
THe curb weight is 4764Lbs.
C&D clocked it at 7.0 sec. 0-60, 15.4 in the 1/4mi.
Silverado SS stats for comparison:
curb weight is 5240Lbs.
0-60 in 6.3 sec.
1/4mi. in 14.8 sec.
What a pig.
It sure "looks" cool though.
Keep in mind its an aluminum block 5.3, so it isn't quite the same as the std truck motor.
08-14-2003, 01:09 PM
#14
Super Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Japan
Posts: 2,026
Originally posted by IREngineer
Hmm, LS2? That would leave base vette. CTSv, and SSR. Kind of makes sense. Makes this niche vehicle a lot more appropriately(sp) priced in the LOW $40k's.
Hmm, LS2? That would leave base vette. CTSv, and SSR. Kind of makes sense. Makes this niche vehicle a lot more appropriately(sp) priced in the LOW $40k's.
08-14-2003, 01:16 PM
#15
Super Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Japan
Posts: 2,026
Originally posted by BAD APPLE
There were several reasons why it couldn't happen. Production numbers on the LQ9 are limited, and they may not have had the ability to change that.
The SSR DOES have an aluminum block. This 5.3 (the LM4) is the same one used this year in the GMT360/370. The GMT800's continue with the iron-block LM7.
While the exterior dimensions of all the vortecs are about the same (therefore making it seem like any of them should drop in and go) the SSR's front end provided some very challenging issues with airflow/cooling that had to be resolved.
Just wait until 2005
There were several reasons why it couldn't happen. Production numbers on the LQ9 are limited, and they may not have had the ability to change that.
The SSR DOES have an aluminum block. This 5.3 (the LM4) is the same one used this year in the GMT360/370. The GMT800's continue with the iron-block LM7.
While the exterior dimensions of all the vortecs are about the same (therefore making it seem like any of them should drop in and go) the SSR's front end provided some very challenging issues with airflow/cooling that had to be resolved.
Just wait until 2005
Any chance of the SSR becoming GM's Lightning fighter?
