Homepage Garage Wiki Register Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
#Camaro6
Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > 2016+ Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro general forum


Bigwormgraphix


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-20-2015, 06:25 AM   #1
Smokin19

 
Drives: 19' ZL1 A10, w/pdr
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: S.W. ohio
Posts: 1,541
Difference between LS3 and LT1

Not being the engine guru some of you are, I was wondering if someone could explain just some of the major differences?

Thanks
Dave
__________________
BTR Stg II cam w/ 38% fuel lobe, ARH 2" headers into 3" w/cats, AWE Touring, Kong X port, Weapon X triple ht exchangers, NW 103, Rotofab big gulp, DSX lowside, TCM tune, BMR Lockout, Mustang dyno 720 rwhp, 634 rwtq on 93 pump.
Smokin19 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 06:33 AM   #2
ssmike
BL1ZZRD
 
ssmike's Avatar
 
Drives: '16 Camaro 2SS, '20 Equinox Redline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 7,840
LS3 is 6.2 liter pushrod with aluminum block and heads. The LT1 is the same pushrod aluminum case/heads but adds direct injection, VVT (variable valve timing) and AFM (active fuel management).

Edit: Forgot to mention LS3 is 426 HP and the LT1 is 455 HP

Last edited by ssmike; 05-20-2015 at 06:35 AM. Reason: Added info
ssmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 06:38 AM   #3
ssmike
BL1ZZRD
 
ssmike's Avatar
 
Drives: '16 Camaro 2SS, '20 Equinox Redline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 7,840
By the same I mean it's aluminum but it is a completely new engine not an upgraded LS3. I hope that clarifies and makes sense.
ssmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 07:28 AM   #4
ChocoTaco369
145lb Powerlifter
 
ChocoTaco369's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 Camaro 2SS RS LS3
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Conshohocken, PA
Posts: 1,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmike View Post
LS3 is 6.2 liter pushrod with aluminum block and heads. The LT1 is the same pushrod aluminum case/heads but adds direct injection, VVT (variable valve timing) and AFM (active fuel management).

Edit: Forgot to mention LS3 is 426 HP and the LT1 is 455 HP
It is important to note that only the A8 is listed as having AFM. The M6 is not.
__________________
ChocoTaco369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 08:47 AM   #5
Stex

 
Drives: 67 goat, 69 goat ram air III
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South texas
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmike View Post
LS3 is 6.2 liter pushrod with aluminum block and heads. The LT1 is the same pushrod aluminum case/heads but adds direct injection, VVT (variable valve timing) and AFM (active fuel management).

Edit: Forgot to mention LS3 is 426 HP and the LT1 is 455 HP
New LT1 owners may want to add a catch can as the direct injection has caused Vett owners issues with valves getting real dirty real quick. No more gas washing the back of the valves with direct injection.

Catch can may help keep the PVC oil vapors off the valves.
Stex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 09:49 AM   #6
wakespeak

 
wakespeak's Avatar
 
Drives: 2020 ZL1 1LE
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 1,325
The LT1 has an elaborate oil separation system built into both valve covers, but that's interesting to hear the C7 owners experiences.

BMW (and basically everyone else with DI) has had similar issues. Road and Track said that BMW blamed it on US drivers taking it too easy on the engines, so the rings never broke in and sealed. This may make for a case to do a "hard" break in for the LT1, such as full throttle runs in 4th from 35mph up to put loading on the pistons.
__________________
2020 ZL1 1LE [Moroso SC Expansion Tank, otherwise stock]
wakespeak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 10:08 AM   #7
whiteboyblues2001

 
whiteboyblues2001's Avatar
 
Drives: 1SS, A8, MRC, NPP, Blade Spoiler
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 1,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakespeak View Post
The LT1 has an elaborate oil separation system built into both valve covers, but that's interesting to hear the C7 owners experiences.

BMW (and basically everyone else with DI) has had similar issues. Road and Track said that BMW blamed it on US drivers taking it too easy on the engines, so the rings never broke in and sealed. This may make for a case to do a "hard" break in for the LT1, such as full throttle runs in 4th from 35mph up to put loading on the pistons.
I read that the Camaro's LT1 has an oil sparator, but I didn't know if the C7 has it or not. The way it was phrased in the article I read, it sounded like it was unique to Camaro, but since it was never stated as such, I guess I shouldn't assume.
whiteboyblues2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 10:14 AM   #8
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 6,987
It sounded to me like GM added the oil separator to the Camaro LT1.
__________________
Bhobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 10:31 AM   #9
whiteboyblues2001

 
whiteboyblues2001's Avatar
 
Drives: 1SS, A8, MRC, NPP, Blade Spoiler
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 1,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakespeak View Post
BMW (and basically everyone else with DI) has had similar issues. Road and Track said that BMW blamed it on US drivers taking it too easy on the engines, so the rings never broke in and sealed.
Yes, and I am sure that turbo boosting a 4.4L engine up to 402HP has nothing do do with the major oil loss these engines are suffering (that is sarcasm just so you know), and hence the fouling of the intake. They had to change the recommended oil life from 15k miles to 10k miles. In this case, it's not just the DI that is causing issues. That engine has MAJOR issues. Here are some of the issues quoted from an article that explains why BMW now requires a new battery install EVERY OIL CHANGE:

"BMW of North America has recognized a number of N63 components with high failure rates, including timing chains that stretch and snap, leaking crankcase ventilation and fuel lines, and malfunctioning fuel injectors, mass airflow sensors, and vacuum pumps."

Some of these issues are related to too much of the combustion blowing past the rings (lots of boost), but there are also major heat issues since they have reverse flow heads and the turbos sitting the V of the engine.

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...ick=welcome-ad

The reverse flow heads were an effort to shorten the intake path, but it is a very clumsy (and not short by the way) solution. I much prefer the way GM uses a liquid secondary on their intercoolers. Super short intake path, and no heat issues. Plus, it's more efficient at cooling the intake anyway.

I wonder what the batter issue will do to depreciation in these cars. For now, the new batter every oil change is covered by the warrenty (or CCP), but what happens after that? That's got to be one hell of an expensive oil change.

Last edited by whiteboyblues2001; 05-20-2015 at 12:07 PM.
whiteboyblues2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 10:35 AM   #10
mt3130

 
Drives: Coupeless :(
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: SWFL
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001 View Post
Yes, and I am sure that turbo boosting a 4.4L engine up to 560HP has nothing do do with the major oil loss these engines are suffering (that is sarcasm just so you know), and hence the fouling of the intake. They had to change the recommended oil life from 15k miles to 10k miles. In this case, it's not just the DI that is causing issues. That engine has MAJOR issues. Here are some of the issues quoted from an article that explains why BMW now requires a new battery install EVERY OIL CHANGE:

"BMW of North America has recognized a number of N63 components with high failure rates, including timing chains that stretch and snap, leaking crankcase ventilation and fuel lines, and malfunctioning fuel injectors, mass airflow sensors, and vacuum pumps."

Some of these issues are related to too much of the combustion blowing past the rings (lots of boost), but there are also major heat issues since they have reverse flow heads and the turbos sitting the V of the engine.

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...ick=welcome-ad

The reverse flow heads were an effort to shorten the intake path, but it is a very clumsy (and not short by the way) solution. I much prefer the way GM uses a liquid secondary on their intercoolers. Super short intake path, and no heat issues. Plus, it's more efficient at cooling the intake anyway.

I wonder what the batter issue will do to depreciation in these cars. For now, the new batter every oil change is covered by the warrenty (or CCP), but what happens after that? That's got to be one hell of an expensive oil change.
I can't imagine paying to replace an AGM every 10k miles on top of the astronomical German oil change costs.
mt3130 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 10:46 AM   #11
whiteboyblues2001

 
whiteboyblues2001's Avatar
 
Drives: 1SS, A8, MRC, NPP, Blade Spoiler
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 1,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by mt3130 View Post
I can't imagine paying to replace an AGM every 10k miles on top of the astronomical German oil change costs.
I havn't looked it up, but I am guessing that ain't a cheap battery. Plus, the oil used ain't cheap either. I think it's made from unicorn blood by the the way it's priced.

Forget the oil, why not just change the engine every 10k mi. That should fix it, and it would be cheaper too. (sorry, my sarcasm it out of control today!)
whiteboyblues2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 10:58 AM   #12
scott53
 
scott53's Avatar
 
Drives: '19 Camaro 2SS, '12 GMC Yukon
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SW PA
Posts: 174
I owned a '10 Corvette GS with LS3 and now own a '14 C7 with LT1 and you cannot believe the seat of the pants difference between the two engines. The power comes on at a much lower RPM with the LT1.

Just noticed I better change my avatar to one with my Camaro and C7. Picture time the next sunny day.
scott53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 11:10 AM   #13
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001 View Post
I read that the Camaro's LT1 has an oil sparator, but I didn't know if the C7 has it or not. The way it was phrased in the article I read, it sounded like it was unique to Camaro, but since it was never stated as such, I guess I shouldn't assume.
yes this was mentioned that the 16 Camaro's (not sure about current Vette's) LT1 will have an oil-separation measure. So it sounds like a catch can will not be necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott53 View Post
I owned a '10 Corvette GS with LS3 and now own a '14 C7 with LT1 and you cannot believe the seat of the pants difference between the two engines. The power comes on at a much lower RPM with the LT1.

Just noticed I better change my avatar to one with my Camaro and C7. Picture time the next sunny day.
As stated above, LT1 makes much more low and midrange torque than the LS3. Just check out the GM engine dynos on the two.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 11:13 AM   #14
IOMike

 
Drives: 2022 F150, 87 Monte Carlo
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: MN
Posts: 1,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott53 View Post
I owned a '10 Corvette GS with LS3 and now own a '14 C7 with LT1 and you cannot believe the seat of the pants difference between the two engines. The power comes on at a much lower RPM with the LT1.

Just noticed I better change my avatar to one with my Camaro and C7. Picture time the next sunny day.
Great to hear. I always felt my LS engines were a little soft down low, but I had never driven one in a Corvette.
IOMike is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.