SLP involvement
#136
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by RussStang
Something like 10% of 01s and 25% of 02s got the LS6 block if I recall correctly. There has been alot of debate over whether the LS6 block itself actually increase engine horsepower, but the consensus seems to be that if it does, it is very, very minimal.
nope ....they all got 'em. We changed the LS1 for the 2001 model year. The difference, as I said above is where they were cast...bright silver in St. Catharines, darker silver in Mexico.
#138
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by Fbodfather
nope ....they all got 'em. We changed the LS1 for the 2001 model year. The difference, as I said above is where they were cast...bright silver in St. Catharines, darker silver in Mexico.
#139
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by Bob Cosby
They might have used 18% for each, but that is almost certainly just a fudge factor, as the A4 will have more parasitic loss than an M6. That is the main reason you see lower traps with the A4.
I wonder if an aggressive (early, that is) lockup program would work better? It would be rougher, and the engine rpm might drop a bit, but you wouldn't have loss in the torque converter. Unless I'm misunderstanding how the lockup converter works . . . .
#140
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by GETGONE
Ok...then why was there an article in GMHTP(I believe) that talked about the LS6 block and that only a certain percentage of 01 and 02 cars got them and the only way to know was the block casting number? I've been reading Will Handzel's Chevy LS1/LS6 V8 book and it gives a lot of useful information. I know that all the LS6 block was was just improved breathing between cylinders with the cast in vent windows vs the machined holes of the earlier LS1 blocks. So there's nothing else "special" about an LS6 block?
#141
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by GETGONE
Ok...then why was there an article in GMHTP(I believe) that talked about the LS6 block and that only a certain percentage of 01 and 02 cars...
![Wink](https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
I too read the article though, but who are you going to believe?
#142
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by CLEAN
I too read the article though, but who are you going to believe?
Not that I think GMHTP has bad info, but look who is telling us this stuff right now...
#143
Re: SLP involvement
Originally posted by teal98
The Torque converter clutch lockup is not meant for high torque applications, its basically a small strip of friction material around the outside of the torque converter that locks the torque converter to itself, bypassing the fluid coupling part. its only used at highway speed when the engine isn't going to need to rev high. Its automatically disengaged when you brake (like disengaging the clutch in a manual) or when you need higher than normal power from the engine, then re-engages it once its been stabilized. If you look closely you can even see when the converter clutch is activated and when its not, if its not then the engine will de-rev freely to idle looking speeds (~1000 rpm), but if the engine tries to derev with the speed of the car (like in a manual), there's a good chance the converter clutch is activated, if you tap the brake then engine should automatically drop to low speeds. or that's the way i understand it anyway...
this is my first post by the way, hope it all makes sense
I wonder if an aggressive (early, that is) lockup program would work better? It would be rougher, and the engine rpm might drop a bit, but you wouldn't have loss in the torque converter. Unless I'm misunderstanding how the lockup converter works . . . .
this is my first post by the way, hope it all makes sense
![Big Grin](https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#144
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by teal98
What about after the lockup clutch has locked? At that point, the A4 and M6 should have the same parasitic losses, right?
I wonder if an aggressive (early, that is) lockup program would work better? It would be rougher, and the engine rpm might drop a bit, but you wouldn't have loss in the torque converter. Unless I'm misunderstanding how the lockup converter works . . . .
I wonder if an aggressive (early, that is) lockup program would work better? It would be rougher, and the engine rpm might drop a bit, but you wouldn't have loss in the torque converter. Unless I'm misunderstanding how the lockup converter works . . . .
On the lockup deal....there are racer's that use the lockup feature during a 1/4 mile pass, and it does indeed increase MPH by a measureable amount.
#145
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by CLEAN
I think that was the same issue that they said the '02 anniversary cars would get an LS6
I too read the article though, but who are you going to believe?
![Wink](https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
I too read the article though, but who are you going to believe?
#146
Disciple
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada (20 min. down the road from the "Shwa"!)
Posts: 270
Re: SLP involvement
Originally Posted by RussStang
I don't know about the anniversary Camaro, but Pontiac was trying to get an LS6 for their anniversary Trans Am.
http://www.highperformancepontiac.co.../0312pon_bird/
Best regardSS,
Elie
#147
Re: SLP involvement
I always thought it would have been a good idea to put the LS6 in the 2002 Fbodies. Would have been a nice send off, but I can image what it would cost to certify that engine and the parts in the car, as well cost to built 40K more LS6 engines.
#148
Re: SLP involvement
You werent going to see an LS6 in an OE FCar beacause of Corvette.
SLP couldnt even get their OE airbox lid approved by GM back in 2001. It was originally targeted for the 10th Anniversary Firehawks. Finally in 02, GM said ok.
As it was, the Corvette team was not happy when Heinrecy did a faster lap around Milford in a 1LE SS on BFG KDs, as compared to his fastest time in a Z51 C5.
Of course, there was a gag order issued preventing anyone going public with that info back then.
SLP couldnt even get their OE airbox lid approved by GM back in 2001. It was originally targeted for the 10th Anniversary Firehawks. Finally in 02, GM said ok.
As it was, the Corvette team was not happy when Heinrecy did a faster lap around Milford in a 1LE SS on BFG KDs, as compared to his fastest time in a Z51 C5.
Of course, there was a gag order issued preventing anyone going public with that info back then.
Last edited by ChrisL; 12-19-2005 at 11:18 AM.