Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com

Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/index.php)
-   Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   how reliable is the LS3? and why so big? (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12874)

1982camaro 02-04-2009 04:32 PM

how reliable is the LS3? and why so big?
 
i have been thinking about the reliability of the LS3 engine as a daily driver. For some reason this engine seems more like a weekend toy type of engine that is only for 1 or 2 days a week.


is there any issues and how many miles can these engines last with proper maintenance? and how have they done being driven 7 days a week?

i thought that the 23 mpg rating was for the manual also but cylinder shutoff only works on autos. What should the epa be for a manual SS?



And why is it such a huge engine at 6.2 liters? Did GM really need that much size to make 420 horses? I heard Ford can do 400 HP with just 5.0 liters.

Tal 02-04-2009 04:57 PM

I'm going to say this as nicely as possible but learn to use your shift key, especially at the start of a paragraph.

On to your questions though, there's no reason the LS block can't be reliable. It's a solid mix of proven design with modern technological improvements.

Manuals are geared different than autos, we don't have solid mpg numbers for any of them yet though so don't worry about whatever the difference might or might not be.

As for the engine, it's high displacement because it wasn't designed for little girls! Seriously though GM's LS block doesn't take any more space or weight than many 'smaller' engines. GM has a 2.0 liter that puts out 260+ horsepower, but it's a very different design. As for Ford their 4.6 liter puts out a piddly 300 horsepower while they use a supercharger on their 5.4 liter to get 540 horsepower. Throw a supercharger on the LS3 and you have the LS9 used in the ZR1 which is 638 horsepower. A full comparsion would take a long time, suffice to say my opinion is the LS block is more impressive, mainly since Ford's V8 is to heavy to even come close properly balancing a car, the GT500 for instance has a ridiculous 58/42 weight distribution problem. Some Ford fans love their heavy block anyway as it does have advantages.

garfin 02-04-2009 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1982camaro (Post 275345)
i have been thinking about the reliability of the LS3 engine as a daily driver. For some reason this engine seems more like a weekend toy type of engine that is only for 1 or 2 days a week.


is there any issues and how many miles can these engines last with proper maintenance? and how have they done being driven 7 days a week?

i thought that the 23 mpg rating was for the manual also but cylinder shutoff only works on autos. What should the epa be for a manual SS?



And why is it such a huge engine at 6.2 liters? Did GM really need that much size to make 420 horses? I heard Ford can do 400 HP with just 5.0 liters.

Just curious as to what you're basing your conclusion on when you say "for some reason" the LS3 is a "1 or 2 day/week "toy"?

You gotta know that the LSx motors are rock solid and a great example of American engineering. The engine has only 2 enemies - water and mechanical over-revving.
My friend is the original owner of his '98 T/A that he has used from day 1 as his daily driver - winter and summer (He lives in Ottawa, Canada). The car has over 325,000 km. on the clock (203,000+ mi) and the engine (completely stock) has never been cracked open! The car has seen its share of autoX events and track days...
Routine maintenance according to the book, coupled with not abusing these engines (i.e. flooring the gas pedal when the engine is cold!) adds up to solid dependability and long engine life.

As well, it appears that when the new Ford 5.0 V8 engine finds its way into the Mustang for the 2010 MY, it will be making somewhere between 325 and 350 HP - not 400 HP as you suggest.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/next-gen...t-engines.html
Even if it does make 350 HP, there is perhaps a 1 HP/liter difference in output between the LS3 (depending on which version you compare) and the new Ford engine(with 3 valves/cylinder vs. the LS3's 2 valve engine?).
The question is, will Ford be able to match the 6.2 L engine's fuel economy with their 5.0 L engine?
... and who knows what the LS3 might be rated at by the time Ford's new engine hits the streets?

Best regardSS,

Elie

blackZbandit 02-04-2009 05:15 PM

Elie always brings words of wisdom... you sir are a scholar and a gentlemen :thumbsup:

1982camaro 02-04-2009 05:20 PM

I keep on hearing about this 5.0 "coyote" engine that is supposed to make 400 hp



Im just the type of car person that gets impressed when a small displacement NA engine can make a lot of power like a honda 2.0 NA 4 cylinder 247 hp engine straight from the factory.

That gm 260 hp engine is a turbo


im asking these questions because i am seriously considering an SS camaro as a daily driver for at least five years.

bolteon593 02-04-2009 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1982camaro (Post 275449)
I keep on hearing about this 5.0 "coyote" engine that is supposed to make 400 hp



Im just the type of car person that gets impressed when a small displacement NA engine can make a lot of power like a honda 2.0 NA 4 cylinder 247 hp engine straight from the factory.

That gm 260 hp engine is a turbo


im asking these questions because i am seriously considering an SS camaro as a daily driver for at least five years.


I like how you manage to not mention that the honda engine your talking about (I'm assuming it's the 237hp engine in the S2000) gets 25% worse gas millage while having one hundred less lbs of torque!!!! and 23 less hp... (when comparing it to the turbo charged I4 found in the colbalt ss)


each engine is engineered differently, i'd rather have more gass millage, more hp, much more tq and a turbo then to have the pride (?) of knowing my engine is mediocre and NA....


---


the ls3 is a hell of a motor... it's base wouldn't be used in the ls9 if it wasn't. go educate yourself, then be impressed. "car person" hah.

1982camaro 02-04-2009 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolteon593 (Post 275489)
I like how you manage to not mention that the honda engine your talking about (I'm assuming it's the 237hp engine in the S2000) gets 25% worse gas millage while having one hundred less lbs of torque!!!! and 23 less hp... (when comparing it to the turbo charged I4 found in the colbalt ss)


each engine is engineered differently, i'd rather have more gass millage, more hp, much more tq and a turbo then to have the pride (?) of knowing my engine is mediocre and NA....


---


the ls3 is a hell of a motor... it's base wouldn't be used in the ls9 if it wasn't. go educate yourself, then be impressed. "car person" hah.



im not saying the ls3 motor isnt one hell of a motor.


the s2000 came out 10 years ago and as far as gas mileage, they both do the same when doing mixed driving which is 21 mpg

Tal 02-04-2009 05:47 PM

If you want high horsepower, naturally aspirated, lower displacement you mean you like DOHC engines. If that's your thing, GM doesn't do that on a V8, but DOHC isn't all roses as they weigh more and takes up more space per liter of displacement.

IF what you care about are just two numbers HP/displacement and being naturally aspirated Honda's F22C1 does have nice numbers but as a total package it's fairly mediocre by modern standards. The power curve is weak, and it's less fuel efficient at 18/25 vs 19/28 for similiarly weighted cars (S2000 vs Solstice GXP, so slight weight and extra gear advantage for the Honda actually), it just doesn't keep up with GM's 2.0T or several other modern 4's.

1982camaro 02-04-2009 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tal (Post 275512)
If you want high horsepower, naturally aspirated, lower displacement you mean you like DOHC engines. If that's your thing, GM doesn't do that on a V8, but DOHC isn't all roses as they weigh more and takes up more space per liter of displacement.



i like all kinds of engines, just seems like anyone can make big power with a big displacement engine.

bolteon593 02-04-2009 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1982camaro (Post 275509)
im not saying the ls3 motor isnt one hell of a motor.


The s2000 came out 10 years ago and as far as gas mileage, they both do the same when doing mixed driving which is 21 mpg

Cobalt is 22/30... not sure how you get a mix number below it's city millage...


The s2000 did come out 10 years ago, for 28k back then that's about 35k these days; great comparison.


Quote:

Originally Posted by 1982camaro (Post 275544)
i like all kinds of engines, just seems like anyone can make big power with a big displacement engine.



*sigh* some people just dont get it.

jesserayjames 02-04-2009 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1982camaro (Post 275345)
i have been thinking about the reliability of the LS3 engine as a daily driver. For some reason this engine seems more like a weekend toy type of engine that is only for 1 or 2 days a week.


is there any issues and how many miles can these engines last with proper maintenance? and how have they done being driven 7 days a week?

i thought that the 23 mpg rating was for the manual also but cylinder shutoff only works on autos. What should the epa be for a manual SS?



And why is it such a huge engine at 6.2 liters? Did GM really need that much size to make 420 horses? I heard Ford can do 400 HP with just 5.0 liters.


Don't worry about it, just go buy yourself a V6, sounds like you don't need more than 300HP.

1982camaro 02-04-2009 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolteon593 (Post 275545)
Cobalt is 22/30... not sure how you get a mix number below it's city millage...


The s2000 did come out 10 years ago, for 28k back then that's about 35k these days; great comparison.




i'm just going according to motortrend. it has 21.7 mixed for the cobalt ss.

the s2000 is impressive for being a decade old. shows honda is 10 years ahead of gm in the 4 cylinder category.

im not comparing prices, thats a whole different subject

Muscle Master 02-04-2009 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tal (Post 275512)
If you want high horsepower, naturally aspirated, lower displacement you mean you like DOHC engines. If that's your thing, GM doesn't do that on a V8, but DOHC isn't all roses as they weigh more and takes up more space per liter of displacement.

IF what you care about are just two numbers HP/displacement and being naturally aspirated Honda's F22C1 does have nice numbers but as a total package it's fairly mediocre by modern standards. The power curve is weak, and it's less fuel efficient at 18/25 vs 19/28 for similiarly weighted cars (S2000 vs Solstice GXP, so slight weight and extra gear advantage for the Honda actually), it just doesn't keep up with GM's 2.0T or several other modern 4's.

Pushrod is the American way, don't like it, go buy a bimmer or somethin

1982camaro 02-04-2009 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesserayjames (Post 275548)
Don't worry about it, just go buy yourself a V6, sounds like you don't need more than 300HP.

the v6 is doing 0-60 in 6.2, my prelude is around the same area.



i need something faster. The v6 camaro is not going to be enough.

Ject 02-04-2009 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1982camaro (Post 275570)
the v6 is doing 0-60 in 6.2, my prelude is around the same area.



i need something faster. The v6 camaro is not going to be enough.

a few mods here and there and you'd be surprised.

Angrybird 12 02-04-2009 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1982camaro (Post 275570)
the v6 is doing 0-60 in 6.2, my prelude is around the same area.



i need something faster. The v6 camaro is not going to be enough.

Nobody really needs anything faster, they may want something faster ....

Any modern engine if taken care of and not abused would have no problem reaching 200K miles easily. the SS would be a great every day driver I wouldn''t worry about reliability problems, it DOES have a 100K powertrain warrenty on it....

1982camaro 02-04-2009 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tal (Post 275512)
If you want high horsepower, naturally aspirated, lower displacement you mean you like DOHC engines. If that's your thing, GM doesn't do that on a V8, but DOHC isn't all roses as they weigh more and takes up more space per liter of displacement.

IF what you care about are just two numbers HP/displacement and being naturally aspirated Honda's F22C1 does have nice numbers but as a total package it's fairly mediocre by modern standards. The power curve is weak, and it's less fuel efficient at 18/25 vs 19/28 for similiarly weighted cars (S2000 vs Solstice GXP, so slight weight and extra gear advantage for the Honda actually), it just doesn't keep up with GM's 2.0T or several other modern 4's.



the s2000 is a decade old. it was beyond impressive back in 1999. give it some credit. its a good engine

djsnoflake 02-04-2009 06:21 PM

From honda website (http://automobiles.honda.com/s2000/performance.aspx) re: 2009 S200: "The S2000 sports a powerful, 2.2-liter" and "Are you ready for 237 hp at 7800 rpm and 162 lb-ft of torque at 6800 rpm?"

No wonder it gets not so great gas mileage. You have to have that thing howling to get and power out of it. What do you drop the clutch at to launch this thing? 6000 RPM?
It doesn't sound like they are "10 years ahead of GM in the 4 cylinder category", It sounds like they took one of their motorbike engines and put it in a car.

Cobalt SS is 260hp@5300 and 260lb/ft @ 2000. Which is at least in the practically useable range.

And on the topic of reliability, I can't see something that has to be revved to almost 8000 RPM lasting terribly long. But maybe they do. I stopped being interested in the S2000 when I found out about it's piddly torque.

TheClassicCarKid 02-04-2009 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1982camaro (Post 275570)
the v6 is doing 0-60 in 6.2, my prelude is around the same area.



i need something faster. The v6 camaro is not going to be enough.

Doesn't a prelude do 0-60 in 7 or 8 seconds?
Anyway, why exactly would you want a smaller displacement engine? Do you and torque not get along well?

1982camaro 02-04-2009 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ject (Post 275581)
a few mods here and there and you'd be surprised.

few mods on the prelude and you would be surprised too

bolteon593 02-04-2009 06:23 PM

once again, it's impressive cause it's always been expensive...


lots of r/d work = more hp = higher price.

you love the engine so much, go get an s2000.

TheClassicCarKid 02-04-2009 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1982camaro (Post 275601)
few mods on the prelude and you would be surprised too

Then stick with the prelude?
idk what you're getting at.
LS3 is a good motor. Probably run 150 thousand miles before you run into problems if you treat it right.

1982camaro 02-04-2009 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheClassicCarKid (Post 275600)
Doesn't a prelude do 0-60 in 7 or 8 seconds?
Anyway, why exactly would you want a smaller displacement engine? Do you and torque not get along well?



usdm preludes do 0-60 from 6.5- 6.8



i have the jdm type s engine and i get around 6.0-6.3


its not that i want a smaller displacement engine, it just have a few questions when a ford engine can get 400 horses with 5.0 and gm with 6.2 of displacement

djsnoflake 02-04-2009 06:29 PM

Quote:

Do you and torque not get along well?
Yeah, that's what I don't get. If you are really concerned about speed, torque is what's really gonna get you going fast. Horsepower is a great number, but torque gives you an idea of how quick you are gonna get to that speed.


And is this new 400 hp 5.0 actually in any vehicle yet?

1982camaro 02-04-2009 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolteon593 (Post 275604)
once again, it's impressive cause it's always been expensive...


lots of r/d work = more hp = higher price.

you love the engine so much, go get an s2000.





i have had too many 4 cylinders, need something different. i have to have a v8. need to try something new


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.