2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia All 2010 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 Camaro news, photos, and videos

SLP involvement

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-17-2005, 08:41 PM
  #136  
ALMIGHTY MEMBER
 
Fbodfather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Detroit, MI USA
Posts: 2,301
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.
Fbodfather is offline  
Old 12-17-2005, 09:09 PM
  #137  
Registered User
 
graham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: northeast Miss.
Posts: 2,887
Re: SLP involvement

Another thing to consider is the parts in an M6. There's a lot of stuff to turn inside there. More than you would think unless you've been in one.
graham is offline  
Old 12-17-2005, 10:34 PM
  #138  
Registered User
 
GETGONE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Middleville, Michigan
Posts: 210
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.
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?
GETGONE is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 12:09 AM
  #139  
Registered User
 
teal98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
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.
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 . . . .
teal98 is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 02:36 AM
  #140  
Registered User
 
RussStang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Exton, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,011
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?
Yes, this interests me as well.
RussStang is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 09:48 AM
  #141  
Registered User
 
CLEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,576
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...
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?
CLEAN is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 09:49 AM
  #142  
Registered User
 
demonspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 302
Re: SLP involvement

Originally Posted by CLEAN
I too read the article though, but who are you going to believe?
Yeah... really haha

Not that I think GMHTP has bad info, but look who is telling us this stuff right now...
demonspeed is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 11:39 AM
  #143  
Registered User
 
Camaro02V6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
Posts: 3
Re: SLP involvement

Originally posted by teal98
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 . . . .
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
Camaro02V6 is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 12:12 PM
  #144  
Registered User
 
Bob Cosby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 3,252
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 . . . .
The losses will be closer, but there is still more mass for the A4 to turn.

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.
Bob Cosby is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 02:22 PM
  #145  
Registered User
 
RussStang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Exton, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,011
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?
I don't know about the anniversary Camaro, but Pontiac was trying to get an LS6 for their anniversary Trans Am. It seems likely the same thought probably came about for the Camaro. Things didn't work out though, and both cars just got the basic LS1.
RussStang is offline  
Old 12-18-2005, 03:48 PM
  #146  
Disciple
 
sselie's Avatar
 
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.
Yup! Actually a link to that story appeared on chirpthird just today, coincidentally enough!
http://www.highperformancepontiac.co.../0312pon_bird/

Best regardSS,

Elie
sselie is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 09:32 AM
  #147  
Registered User
 
Big Als Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 4,306
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.
Big Als Z is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 11:09 AM
  #148  
2010 Camaro Moderator/Disciple
 
ChrisL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Chester, NY
Posts: 1,087
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.

Last edited by ChrisL; 12-19-2005 at 11:18 AM.
ChrisL is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 12:50 PM
  #149  
Registered User
 
cgman69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: long island new york
Posts: 10
Wink Re: SLP involvement

I would rather see the gm performance team work on the camaro.
Get to work John Moss!
cgman69 is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 12:51 PM
  #150  
Admin Emeritus
 
JasonD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Nashville, TN area
Posts: 11,157
Re: SLP involvement

Originally Posted by cgman69
Get to work John Moss!
John Moss is retired.
JasonD is offline  


Quick Reply: SLP involvement



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:38 AM.