Talk:General Motors LS-based small-block engine

all the LS engines are SBC. yes they can be found in other brands besides Chevy just like the previous two generations. this is relativily easy and i do mean easy thing to source. after the early 80's all V8's were either a Chevrolet or Cadillac design. the name itself is in referance to small block chevrolet, example: Gen I refers to Generation I small block chevrolet; Gen II refers to Generation II small block chevrolet; and of course Gen III/IV refers to Generation III/IV small block chevrolet. should we stop calling the northstar engines Cadillac engines all together as well and just simple call them premium V8s. technically both names are valid. just like the name SBC in referance to Gen III. it is technically correct to call them GM small blocks just like it is technically correct to call them SBC.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gen III SBC^[1][2][3][4] That's four references to the name in less than a minute of searching. removal of the Chevrolet from the article is nonsense because you will need to remove it from multiple wiki pages as well as thousands of articles on the net.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Except the Gen III V8 isn't a small block Chevy, it's a GM corporate engine, which GM often referres to as the Gen III V8. TheBalance (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

funny here is an artical from GM itself saying: "The 5.7L Gen III LS1 introduced leading-edge technologies to the grand tradition of the Chevrolet small block V8, starting with all-aluminum construction, a thermoplastic intake manifold and drive-by-wire electronic throttle." http://archives.media.gm.com/division/2003_prodinfo/03_powertrain/03_car_engine/index.html . (go to 5.7 L and then click on "what's new". this is GM saying that its is a SBC. you can't add to a tradition of SBC if you aren't part of it already. Gulielmi2002 (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are you getting this? The engine was referred to as the "5.7L V8 (LS1)" in the document.

And "leading-edge technologies to the grand tradition of the Chevrolet small block V8" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the LS1 being considered a small block Chevy, considering it is a corporate engine. The reason the SBC is the SBC is because other GM divisions used their own engine families, had they all used the SBC it would have been the GM or GM corporate small block. That is what the Gen III+ is.

Now, click here: ^[5], note the LS engine isn't group with the SBC, now click on LS engine and note the description, and I quote, "Below is our LS range of crate engines including the LS1 V8 5.7L crate engine, LS2 V8 6.0L crate engine, LS3 V8 6.2L crate engine, LS6 V8 5.7L crate engine and the LS7 V8 7.0L crate engine described as the most technologically-advanced production GM small-block ever built"

Here GM itself tells us what to call the engine family: ^[6], and I quote, "Known as the LS Family V-8 small-block".

The LS family is not a SBC, it is the corporate GM small block V8.TheBalance (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

it is both, looking at the link does say this. adding to something does mean that it is a part of it. now if the LS engines weren't SBC they line would be this : "Taking or building off (which would imply not SBC) from the grand traditions of the SBC The 5.7L Gen III LS1 introduced starting with all-aluminum construction, a thermoplastic intake manifold and drive-by-wire electronic throttle," but notice that it does say introduced new technologies to SBC. follow the link that i provided. click on the 5.7L in the break down. in the 5.7L spec page click on the Whats new and you will read the exact words that i copied and pasted here. this page predates your reference by 5 years the information predates yours by 11 years. Gulielmi2002 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The LS was a clean sheet design, intended from the outset as the corporate small-block. In fact, the LS has more in common design-wise with the small block Ford than it does the SBC. The LS is not a small block Chevy in any respect, give it up. TheBalance (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

why give it up when a: GM itself has posted it many times in the LS1 info paper and in the LS7 info paper and b: it beyond easy to get the info and sources example: http://grannys.tripod.com/rx7engineselectioninfo.html and c: the info on how ls1 came to be which was posted in hot rod mag in the early 2000s. really a ford small block...because the heads have semetrical exhaust ports? after the early 80's there were only two brands making V8s, chevy and cadillac....which still hasn't changed. it is not incorrect to call the LS engines gen III/IV SBC V8s as it also not incorrect to call them just gen III/IV V8s, the latter is just a shorter name for the first oneGulielmi2002 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That is hardly a relevant source. GM itself refers to the LSx engines as Gen III/IV small block V8s.

The LS is has many similarities with the SBF: identical cylinder head bolt pattern (vastly different from the 5-bolt SBC pattern), symmetrical intake AND exhaust port layout, nearly identical (high) camshaft position in the block, virtually the same deck height as the 351C. The only aspect the LSx shares with the SBC is bore spacing and rod journal diameter. For instance, LSx heads will bolt onto a 302/351 Ford block without modification, yet will not bolt onto a 350 SBC block, not even close. The LSx was a clean sheet engine design, one that took essentially nothing from the traditional SBC playbook, and was always intended as a corporate engine, not a "Chevy engine". The LSx is not a SBC, it is a GM corporate small block, and referring to it as a SBC will only mislead people into thinking it is related to the traditional SBC engine family, when that couldn't be further from the truth. TheBalance (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion for the last couple of days and have read the sources provided for each side of the argument. I'm going to have to agree with the idea that the GM LS engine is a corporate engine manufactured by GM for use in all of their brands and is not Chevrolet specific in any way. If anything, GM seems to relate to the Chevrolet small-block only in marketing terms and that's probably only because the SBC has some history and identity behind its name. roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

yes i will agree with the fact that the LS engine are corporate engines but so where the Gen I's after the early 80s. i am not arguing that they can't be called GM Gen III+ small blocks, but i am arguing that they can be called Gen III+ SBC too. the fact that they started out exclusively chevrolet is one point and more models of the chevrolet line up use them. just look at the numbers: LS1 exclusively chevy from 97-99; 4.8L exclusively chevy 99-current; 5.3L exclusively chevy 99-02; 6.0 exclusively chevy 99-02. chevrolet heads the non-premium (cady engines) under GM powertrain because they use them more just like cadillac heads the northstar engines under GM powertrain both common knowledge. other brands under GM use them true and modify them for their needs same was true for the Gen I's because they are corprate engine but who is the main design influence behind them...chevrolet. just like you can call the high feature V6s cady/holden engines because they designed them and yes they too are corporate engine as well.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The sbc (not the corporate v-8 LS engines)was not a corporate engine. If it was then the Olds v-8 was as well, since they put them in several car lines from different divisions up to 1990.^[7]

Unless I just missed it I heard no mention of the 8.1L —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.182.76 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

the 8.1 L vortec is a BBC engine with some mods originating from LS family. i went to a car dealership (ron carder in alvin, tx awhile back) and they had a cut-away of this 8.1L engine. externally and internally its a BBC; basically it's a stroked 454 with coil over plug, and even retains its hole for a distributor, but that hole is being used for some sensor that is used for timing of the coilsGulielmi2002 (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The 8.1 (496 cu.in.) isn't even close to a big block Chevy. Completely different engine. The 8.2 (502 cu.in.) is a big block Chevy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.79.0 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no argument when an actual cutaway engine is displayed showing that it is nothing more than a BBC with modifications and/or upgrades. Firing order, size, nor does upgraded coil packs make the 8.1 not a BBC. Deck height, bore spacing, part interchangeability, and overall block architecture do, and in this case does. The proof is in the engine cutaway.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Some pictures showing the engines apart of cars would be informative. --46.115.124.135 (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) with reference to the 8.1 or 496 engine comments and particularly about the cutaway confirming it is nothing but a modified BBC i note the following having dealt with theses engines in marine applications. Pistons are side specific, crank is specific, flywheel and balancer are specific, heads are left and right not interchangeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius750 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Toyota UZ engine came before Ford modular and LS engines, so why are we using Ford as an example for firing order. this follow an incorrect fanboy argument that LS engine is just a copy of a Ford design, and serves no other purpose. Ford modular 4.6L OHC only made 210hp while Northstar 4.6L OHC made 300hp, so i think Modular is a bad example of a modern engine.

what happened to the first generation in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BIGBLOCKFAN (talk • contribs) 15:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

BIGBLOCKFAN, there was never a first generation General Motors small-block engine. General Motors considers the Chevrolet small-block engine as the "first generation" small-block engine. However, it should be noted that the General Motors small-block engines are a corporate design and differ significantly from the original Chevrolet small-block engine design; enough to warrant a separate article. I hope that makes sense. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please consider incorporating any useful information from this submission. ~KvnG 00:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Technically, there is always a number after LS, and no single engine called just LS. Instead of listing all the numbers, the common number substitution is "x". LSX Forum, LSX Fest, LSX Challenge, etc. Shouldn't it have that here? Plus, if you remember the ricer craze, LS is a Honda engine. 68.229.212.186 (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LS based GM small-block engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120317125329/http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/Whats%20New/Gen%20IV/Gen%20IV%20Car/08_LS4.doc to http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/Whats%20New/Gen%20IV/Gen%20IV%20Car/08_LS4.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I noticed a recent edit regarding cylinder liners on the aluminum blocks was reverted. Thing is, it's true, the aluminum block LS and LT engines use cast iron liners. Carguy1701 (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LS based GM small-block engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012042027/http://www.idavette.net/hib/ls6/page3.htm to http://www.idavette.net/hib/ls6/page3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620181509/http://www.motoring.com.au/reviews/2008/large-passenger/holden-special-vehicles/gts/csv-gts-ls7-5794 to http://www.motoring.com.au/reviews/2008/large-passenger/holden-special-vehicles/gts/csv-gts-ls7-5794

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Add information about LT5 (376 ci V8 DOHC for 2018 Corvette ZR1) and LF3 (3.6L V6 DOHC twin turbo for 2020 Corvette C8) with same engine technology. Reference 3 minutes 30 seconds into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq7YimybK_w&t=184s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.253.2 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LS based GM small-block engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702155012/http://gmpowertrain.com/VehicleEngines/PowertrainProducts.aspx to http://gmpowertrain.com/VehicleEngines/PowertrainProducts.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050112062930/http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2006/LS7.shtml to http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2006/LS7.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820143041/http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/AutoshowArticles/articleId%3D117396 to http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/AutoshowArticles/articleId%3D117396

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LS based GM small-block engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424194327/http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Vehicles/Performance/Engine_Showcase/LS/01_images/LS9%20Crate%20Engine%2019244099.pdf to http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Vehicles/Performance/Engine_Showcase/LS/01_images/LS9%20Crate%20Engine%2019244099.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I assume this is well known among people who actually do LSx swaps but do the different engines or even generations generally mate up with a given GM vehicle's existing transmission? e.g. would an LM7 bolt up to an LR4 truck? The C5+ Corvettes have transaxles so obviously the torque tube is not shared, but what about the other platforms? I'm not looking for advice, and I don't think wiki would be the place to ask for it, I just think it would be notable one way or the other in terms of the history and continuity of the "GM small-block" that has been called so since 1955.74.96.220.27 (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

If my memory is correct, the LM7 and the LR4 used the same transmission during production, so yeah. Hell, the only difference with the LSx bellhousing bolt pattern versus the classic SBC is one bolt, IIRC. Carguy1701 (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Does LS stand for something? MBG02 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Not particularly, no. However, GM engine RPO codes usually use the letter L as the first digit, and obviously the LS1 was the first member of the family, hence the designation. Carguy1701 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking about this idly (and got into a minor argument on Facebook over it), but the LT engines shouldn't have much if any interchange with the LS engines, should they? I know the top ends are different (the valve layout in the heads is flipped: intakes on an LT are where exhausts would be on an LS and vice versa), as well as camshafts (since LT cams need an addition on the end for the HPFP, something LS engines lack), but do the rotating assemblies have any interchange at all? I had added a note about the design differences in the Gen V section but I'll admit I'm not 100% sure. Carguy1701 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Carguy1701: doesn't seem like it, I looked up rotating assembly products for various LS engines, and it seems that gen III/IV are definitely interchangeable whilst the gen V doesn't show up. Hope this helps (albeit it is a bit late) Obama gaming (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion the Gen VI doesn't have this place in this article. As the sources already in this section points out, the LT6 is a clean sheet design. No major parts are interchangable and the only characteristic that is tuely shared is the bore spacing.

The Gen V also had little part intechangability with the gen III end IV, but those still had an obvious filiation in the concept (pushrod 16 valve) and the general shape of the components. This is not something that we have in the Gen VI.

Frongicide (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, for the same reasons you listed. Unless GM officially calls it a Small Block (and/or Gen VI, I honestly don't recall any of the articles for the C8 Z06 or the engine using that term), it should be spun off into its own article. Carguy1701 (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Understand where you're coming from but until GM officially says otherwise, we're treating this as a sixth generation block. We'll keep an eye on it, & if any updates pop in the next couple of months I'll be more than willing to move it to it's own page. Obama gaming (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with this is if that page was titled something like "Chevrolet small block engine family" and would encompass all gens from I to VI, but currently gen I and II have their own dedicated page. If gen I and II are different enough to LS based engines warrant their own page, then surely gen VI is too. But currently this page is titled "General Motors LS-based small-block engine", wich is not a good fit for the content of the page since while the LT6 fits the usual criterias for a small block, it is not based on the LS. Moreover, the intro of the page makes goes into detail about the choice of pushrod thechnolgy and the consequences of that choice in terms of packaging and costs, wich doesn't applies to the LT6 since it is DOHC. Frongicide (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Frongicide: Yes I see where you're coming from, but as you can see from this article it is still referred to as a small block, and until GM releases another engine similar to this current "architecture" then we can seriously consider creating it's own page like for generation I & II. So for now, we'll keep it here. For now. Obama gaming (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Obama gaming: I am not, and have never been, contesting the "small block" part. I am contesting the "LS based" part. I find it ludicrous that we have an engine explicitely descibed as not based on the LS at the end of an article about LS based engines. If you want to wait before the split, then this page should be renamed as "modern Chevrolet Small Block engine", or something like that. The Blackwing fits the criteria for a small block too and yet has its own page - Despite the fact that it was essentially only produced in one version (with two different ouputs but hey, so was the LS3). Frongicide (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah mate I definitely agree, I just have no idea what to name the new article. Any suggestions? Obama gaming (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd say "modern Chevrolet Small Block engine" or "Post-LS General Motors small block engine" Frongicide (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Frongicide: Hmmm, do you think something like "Chevrolet small-block engine (sixth generation)" could work? Because obviously we don't know if this is a chevy exclusive or GM-wide engine, but those are good ones Obama gaming (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh you meant you agree on splitting ? Great ! "Chevrolet small-block engine (sixth generation)" would indeed be the most appropriate name for the dedicated Gen VI page IMO yes Frongicide (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have created a dedicated page with this name. Content is mostly info that was on this page for now. Frongicide (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It would seem this article was written by fanbois? 2607:F598:B69A:8D0:AD0B:1E18:FE37:B537 (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There are 1-2 paragraphs that could stand a rework, even though the info is nominally correct. Carguy1701 (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The introduction is certainly worded in a way that it completely deserves a re-write, but I'm not quite sure if we should remove it or reword it. The whole article needs a refresh to be honest, I'm just starting off with easy things such as replacing dead links for dyno charts. Obama gaming (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I might take a stab at the one where Sloppy is namedropped if I get time, but if you beat me to it I won't complain. Carguy1701 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Would pointing out that some LS engines outpowered their slightly larger Ford counterparts be too fanboyish? Examples would be how the 4.8L rather handily outpowered the 4.6L 2V in trucks and vans, as well as the 5.3L outpowering the 5.4L in both 2V and 3V forms. Carguy1701 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that should be mentioned, unless there are specific mentions in tertiary sources (i.e. the 4.8L was the most powerful engine when it was released in X vehicle, more powerful than its Ford counterpart in Y vehicle). Otherwise I think it's WP:UNDUE. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 23:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Carguy1701 (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Since this seems to be a hot button issue, I'll quote Cadillac's own press release: "The Escalade-V’s engine shares architectural similarities with the CT5-V Blackwing’s supercharged V-8, but features a larger, 2.65L R2650 TVS supercharger that helps overcome the higher inlet and exhaust restrictions on the full-size SUV application."; Car and Driver essentially says the same thing. That sounds like it's a modified version of the LT4. However, the press release does not give an RPO code for the engine (I think the press release for the CT5-V Blackwing did, for context). I'll admit I can't see GM developing a new variant of the Gen V engine for one application, but until we've got more concrete information, I think we should hold off on adding the Escalade-V to the LT4 application table. Carguy1701 (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If you insist, Carguy1701. I have no objections. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 02:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Jalopnik says it is in fact the LT4. The supercharger (and block casting, apparently) are different from the CT5-V Blackwing. Wouldn't be the first time that GM has done something like this (the twin versions of the LT1 from the 90s come to mind). Carguy1701 (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Lot of articles say the engine is the same from the CT5-V blackwing (which has the same block, but a 2.65L supercharger instead of whatever the original displacement was). Cheers GM. Makes things really clear. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 23:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

For anyone wondering; I've rectified the broken anchor by red-adding it into the Silverado page. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 19:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

In several places, there appear to be incorrect cubic inch displacements. For example, the 5.3L Gen V L83 is listed as being 320 ci, but the 96 mm x 92 mm creates a 325 ci displacement. I was wondering whether the article or the calculator is correct. Thanks! 209.122.138.80 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not a mechanic, so I may completely misunderstand the following :-)

This description on a picture: "Visible in the foreground are the valves, and behind is the lifter which actuates the camshaft via the rocker arms (top)." could be interpreted to say that the lifter (it is not clear to me which part this is) moves the rocker arms, which cause the camshaft to turn.

This seems implausible to me. I am used to crankshafts pulling timing chains, which turn camshafts, which move cam followers, which move various machnery, which moves pistons.

Could someone who really understands this stuff please check the wording on the picture?

ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@ArthurDent006.5 reworded; take a look X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Naively reading the consent on the picture, Gordon Ramsey's page seems fairly sparse :-)

I don't imagine that I'm ever going to stay nerd-sniped for long enough to win an editing contest, but thanks for the encouragement.

ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, the engine table needs a rework. A few engines are missing, the production years are wrong for some, the units are only in US units (aside from displacement in liters), and the power and torque are incorrect for a lot. In addition, does there really need to be a column just for fuel? It makes more sense to include E85 (or for the LFA and LZ1, hybrid) capability under features. There lies another problem: features and block/head material are separate. I feel like it makes more sense to put fuel type, block/head material, and features together into one column. Noting these issues, I spent a few hours reformatting and correcting the table, but I wanted to see if anyone else wanted it replaced or not first.

My proposed new table here. This person thanks you for your time -> MCPro1239953 09:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

No qualms on my part. Lots of this article needs a rehaul, and any efforts from any quarter is welcome. Best, X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 17:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

So you removed the old table because it was missing some engines, and now is missing even more engines and without the organizing button in the top? LSX 454R anywhere? 187.46.76.29 (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

1. With the full-width generation rows, the sorting doesn't work as well.

2. It was a conscious decision to not include the aftermarket/OEM engines. I re-added them if you care that much. This person thanks you for your time -> MCPro1239953 16:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

As people, including myself, have begun to add non General Motors vehicles which use LS based engines into the applications sections of this article, i'm wondering what other editors think of creating separate applications sections for official GM vehicles versus third party applications. TKOIII (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

We should have some differentiation between official and third party applications, yeah. Carguy1701 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm wondering how I should label the sections. Perhaps they could be labeled as "official applications" and "unofficial applications", or as "GM applications" and "Non GM applications". Not sure exactly how I would go about it. TKOIII (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)