1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

[Joe L.]

Re: 1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

I had not tumbled to the fact before this thread that GM had LS7s before the current Z06 engine. Is that the only engine code they recycled from the past?

Michael------

No, just about all the engine RPO codes have been "recycled" although not necessarily for Corvettes. For example, RPO L-78 of 1965 Corvette and passenger car fame was also used for 1977-79 Chevrolets with 400 CID small block. MANY other similar examples. RPO code definitions are specific to a a model year or range of model years.

[Michael J.]

Re: 1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

Michael------

No, just about all the engine RPO codes have been "recycled" although not necessarily for Corvettes. For example, RPO L-78 of 1965 Corvette and passenger car fame was also used for 1977-79 Chevrolets with 400 CID small block. MANY other similar examples. RPO code definitions are specific to a a model year or range of model years.

I do hope they have never had an LS9 before, that would make me sad....

Oops, just looked it up and they used it for some dog 350 in trucks before...I am sad..

[Duke W.]

Re: 1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

Does anyone know what the horsepower and torque numbers might have been on the console plates of the LS7 and LJ2?

Increasing stroke alone, all other things equal, both engines will make about the same peak power at the same mean piston speed regardless of the manufacturer's ratings, which in that period of "SAE gross" were highly manipulated by the marketing people.

The longer stroke engine will make more peak torque (torque is primarily a function of displacement and compression ratio), and more torque across the range up to the power peak, so the stroker will make more average power through the useable rev range.

Thus the old adage: there is no substitute for cubic inches.

All Corvette 427s had the same peak torque rating - 460 lb-ft. IIRC the LS-5 was rated at 500 lb-ft, so you can expect that these stillborn 454 configurations would have had the same or very similar peak torque rating.

Duke

[Norris W.]

Re: 1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

I do hope they have never had an LS9 before, that would make me sad....

Oops, just looked it up and they used it for some dog 350 in trucks before...I am sad..

What makes me sad is that the college boy/bean counter/marketing goons at GM have recycled truly Iconic GM names into what we have today. The LS6 Chevelle, considered by many to be the peak of production muscle cars should have been left to enjoy it's deserved place in history instead of being dilluted by sharing the description with one of today's Corvette engines. I would have a hard time believing that one single person who bought a new LS6 engined Corvette did so because of the engine's number. It's equally disappointing that Chevrolet decided to now do a ZL1 Camaro, and along the same lines, the so called limited edition, all aluminum 427 big block ZL1 offered several years ago should have been labeled differently too since it bears virtually no resemblence to it's granfather except for the aluminum block and heads. Even the compression ratio is lower as part of the downgrade.

GM is also raping the memory of the Chevelle with the recently showcased NEW Chevelle which looks like the illegitimate offspring of a Toyota Celica and some unidentified Mazda. Why not just call it something else and let the Chevelle name enjoy it's deserved place in history?

[Pat M.]

Re: 1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

Why not just call it something else and let the Chevelle name enjoy it's deserved place in history?

I agree. Kinda like the endless movie remakes we see today. Why not just leave the classics alone and come up with a new idea for once?

[Michael J.]

Re: 1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

I would also agree with all that, but the worst GM mistake had to be the GTO they came out with a few years ago. An Australian built Toyota looking junker, what a mess that was, Pontiac deserved to go down after that.

[Terry M.]

Re: 1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

What makes me sad is that the college boy/bean counter/marketing goons at GM have recycled truly Iconic GM names into what we have today. The LS6 Chevelle, considered by many to be the peak of production muscle cars should have been left to enjoy it's deserved place in history instead of being dilluted by sharing the description with one of today's Corvette engines. I would have a hard time believing that one single person who bought a new LS6 engined Corvette did so because of the engine's number. It's equally disappointing that Chevrolet decided to now do a ZL1 Camaro, and along the same lines, the so called limited edition, all aluminum 427 big block ZL1 offered several years ago should have been labeled differently too since it bears virtually no resemblence to it's granfather except for the aluminum block and heads. Even the compression ratio is lower as part of the downgrade.

GM is also raping the memory of the Chevelle with the recently showcased NEW Chevelle which looks like the illegitimate offspring of a Toyota Celica and some unidentified Mazda. Why not just call it something else and let the Chevelle name enjoy it's deserved place in history?

Norris -- Calm down a little. You are mixing apples and oranges.

The guys who select the engine codes (the powertrain engineering management) are not college boy bean counters. If you belonged to the Michigan NCRS Chapter you would know them as car guys through & through. I expect they are reading this and laughing. You won't see them defend themselves on here. They are sensitive to the "public impression" that they leave and GM does have a policy regarding media exposure that does not allow them to defend themselves or the corporation on the Internet. Trust me, I know these guys, and they have the best of intentions – even if they can’t/won’t tell any one what the C7 will have for power.

As to the new body styles with old names (yes there is now ANOTHER Caprice RWD that may prove to be a worthy successor to the old police car, and I am so tempted.) that is a marketing decision that these engineers have nothing to do with. I don’t know the marketing guys, and so I can’t speak to their motives except to say that the automotive business is a dog eat dog environment and any edge one brand can get in the marketplace is necessary. There is no room for sentimentality in the sales end of the business.

All that said: The recent resurrection of LT1, Z06, ZR1, and Grand Sport are no accident, and I submit to you the newer versions of each of these are a worthy compliment to the past glory of those names. I expect “427 Convertible” will find a new niche and create its own spot in history.

[Michael J.]

Re: 1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

I would agree about the ZR1, from personal experience (including building the LS9 myself) it has to be the most exciting, powerful, comfortable, and stylish car GM has ever made. The old ZR1 couldn't hold a candle to it in any way, shape, or form.

[Norris W.]

Re: 1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

Well Terry, I disagree with 'ya bud. I just don't see how a "car guy through and through" could possibly tag an LS series smallblock as an LS6 REGARDLESS of how good the new LS engine is. Just so you'll know, I'm a loyal GM customer "through and through". I've got 2 Denalis in my yard, both a truck and a Yukon and have had 7 new GM since 2005, not counting our vans at my business which are all GM also. And this is in spite of the great Obama theft of GM, at which time I said I'd by Fords for the first time ever (but didn't).

I could agree with them using generics on new vehicles, such as SS or Rallie Sport, but when they start with specifics such as ZL1, LS6, LS7 it just degrades the legend from my viewpoint. I see nothing wrong with "427 convertible" but if the college boys decide to do an L88 based on a smallblock I am definately going over to Ford.

I guess another opinion we disagree on is the "no reoom for sentimentality in the sales end of the business". There is a lot of sentimentality in building a customer base and unfortunately I think this is something corporate America has totally lost sight of. The Chevelle concept just unveiled is another key example. So I've got a '70 Chevelle with about 3000 hours invested in and walk in a Chevy store and see that new crap box Toyota Celica wanna' be with Chevelle emblems. I think GM was on the right track with resurrecting the Camaro with a strong resemblence to the earlier cars and a lot of appeal. There's no question the newer Corvettes are a natural progression in that long proud line. The same could be said for the new generation Camaro. To now label some super ugly 4 cyl 4 door econobox as either would be equally as blasphemous as pinning the label of the true ikons of the muscle car era on a present generation smallblock. But hey............... that's just my opinion.

[Joe L.]

Re: 1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

Something to keep in mind: all GM engine RPO codes begin with an "L". All GM RPO codes are three characters total. That means that, effectively, there is a total of 1,036 maximum possible combinations. Given all of the various engines used in ALL GM car and truck lines over the 50+ years that this RPO code system has been in use, there has to be duplication of use of codes. To "retire" certain codes in respect to their perceived iconic status could result in a LOT of codes being unavailable. Remember, RPO codes that Chevrolet afficionados might consider iconic are just part of the story. There are lots of other codes that Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Buick guys might consider iconic.

[Pat M.]

Re: 1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

Something to keep in mind: all GM engine RPO codes begin with an "L". All GM RPO codes are three characters total.

But couldn't GM simply change this formula if they wanted to "retire" certain codes?

[Patrick H.]

Re: 1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

But couldn't GM simply change this formula if they wanted to "retire" certain codes?

You want GM to change?

Surely you jest.

[Norris W.]

Re: 1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

Something to keep in mind: all GM engine RPO codes begin with an "L". All GM RPO codes are three characters total. That means that, effectively, there is a total of 1,036 maximum possible combinations.

Joe, I can't follow your math. If they all start with L, that means the first possibility is only 1.

If the second could be a letter or number, that means the second possibility is 36

If the third is always a number, that means the third posibility is 10.

That looks like 1 X 36 X 10 or 360 possibilities.

Even if there was a possibility of numbers AND letters in the 3rd spot it looks like there be 1296 possibilities.

What'd I do wrong?

Also, what is the engine code for a Z28?

[Dick W.]

Re: 1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

I intended to one day build a "what GM should have built" 1970 Corvette LS7 tribute car with L88 hood and air cleaner, etc, but never got around to it. I still think it'd be a cool project.

Proteam had a '69 L/88 a couple of years ago, that once upon a time, about 1971, had a fully modified LS-7 engine in it. The car was about 45 miles from me. Almost lost two vehicles one night when we went to a street race when this car was running. something to do with the NC Highway Patrol and pre-arranged street racing. With the tires of the day it was impossible to keep from breaking the tires loose in third gear. And you would not believe 4th gear.

[Michael J.]

Re: 1970 454 w/ factory 3X2 ?

Also, what is the engine code for a Z28?

Oh, now that is a great trivia question. I know they had a DZ stamping, but as I recall the Z28 package designation was all there was, I don't remember an L series engine RPO number at all.