[Coded4SS]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

Ah, for crying out loud, do I have to attach this link every time...

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=556150

Yes, there is a 15~20 WHP/WTQ gain across the rev range, so 20 BHP gain is fair to say. Remember, there is a tune that comes with the intake, so the gain is sustainable. And no, the tune isn't for emission purposes, it's to correct the MAF readings as far as I understand.

It's also already 50-state legal, and you can already option a Camaro V8 to come from the factory with it installed. Again, there is already a solution for 20 BHP gain with a warranty.

I'm sure you saw a graph a Dyno whatever .but it's not 20hp. It just isn't seems it varies (of course) some people max at 10hp. Dynos vary, but no your not doing 20hp on a CAI on a stock car. Unless the Dyno is very generous

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Sindri

I dont think UAW is a laughable threat - there are probably significant monetary damages GM would incur if they shuttered the plant without a replacement for those folks to work on and had to let them all go. Think about it, if the Camaro is such a sales dog, the pamdemic, supply shortage, and all the on-again, off-again plant closures would have been the perfect excuse to axe the Camaro if they wanted. They didnt, and there has to be a reason for that.

The exhaust is part of the equation, but its also cam, intake manifold, dry sump oiling system, etc. As Ive said before, the Camaro wouldn't get a "real" LT2 because you are right, it's a mid-engine block. But its still part of the LT1 family. It uses many LT1 parts (crank, rods, pistons, heads, etc.)

What GM could/would do is adapt LT2 parts to the LT1 - make a "hybrid" engine. The cam and intake manifold practically bolt right up. An exhaust manifold redesign would require some extra effort though. EPA/CARB certification is not cheap, per se, but not exorbitantly expensive either and could be justified if the Camaro continues out through 2026, which has been a rumor. They may be counting on a sales bump, which I think 30+ HP might give them.

I just wanna make certain everyone is clear that the LT1 is made at either St. Catharines, Ont, Tonawanda, NY, or Spring Hill, TN (engine plant) and not at Lansing Grand River, right? Camaro is made at LGR as we all know, and the future of that plant is definitely BEV. Hamtramck is Factory Zero #1. Spring Hill (Assy) is Factory Zero #2. LGR will be either FZ#3 or #4, so no UAW issues on that end.

St. Catharines, Tonawanda, and Spring Hill all make multiple models of the Small Block V8 as well as other 4 and 6 cylinder engines. LT1 would be the tail wagging the dog at whichever plant it is made at. If I was still doing the powertrain forecasts I could tell you exactly which of those plants makes LT1, but I’m too lazy to sign into the system right now.

When we’re talking UAW backlash, remember, GM recently closed Lordstown Assy. in the middle of a contract year and presidential election cycle and they didn’t suffer any significant backlash. Bad press? Sure. Lasting impact? Nope. Dropping LT1 is a tiny ripple in a very large pond compared to that move. The production line will barely recognize that it’s gone when those L87s continue to rip along those same lines in much higher volume.

GM could borrow some of the content of the LT2 and update the LT1, but then they’d wind up giving it a different RPO code. It wouldn’t be LT1, LT2, LT4, LT5, LT6, or LT7 because those are all taken. I can’t recall if LT3 is taken, so maybe that would be it. IF they chose to do so.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I just wanna make certain everyone is clear that the LT1 is made at either St. Catharines, Ont, Tonawanda, NY, or Spring Hill, TN (engine plant) and not at Lansing Grand River, right? Camaro is made at LGR as we all know, and the future of that plant is definitely BEV. Hamtramck is Factory Zero #1. Spring Hill (Assy) is Factory Zero #2. LGR will be either FZ#3 or #4, so no UAW issues on that end.

St. Catharines, Tonawanda, and Spring Hill all make multiple models of the Small Block V8 as well as other 4 and 6 cylinder engines. LT1 would be the tail wagging the dog at whichever plant it is made at. If I was still doing the powertrain forecasts I could tell you exactly which of those plants makes LT1, but I’m too lazy to sign into the system right now.

When we’re talking UAW backlash, remember, GM recently closed Lordstown Assy. in the middle of a contract year and presidential election cycle and they didn’t suffer any significant backlash. Bad press? Sure. Lasting impact? Nope. Dropping LT1 is a tiny ripple in a very large pond compared to that move. The production line will barely recognize that it’s gone when those L87s continue to rip along those same lines in much higher volume.

GM could borrow some of the content of the LT2 and update the LT1, but then they’d wind up giving it a different RPO code. It wouldn’t be LT1, LT2, LT4, LT5, LT6, or LT7 because those are all taken. I can’t recall if LT3 is taken, so maybe that would be it. IF they chose to do so.

Martinjlm, thank you so much for all this great info! I should be very clear that I don't work for GM, or in the automotive industry, and I don't have any special inside information. To be honest my gut feeling is that GM will probably stick with the LT1 and ride it out until the Camaro sunsets. That being said, I still think it's an interesting discussion regarding the reasons why it might happen. I think people are too quick to dismiss it, and talking it out and exploring different scenarios is how we learn things.

I have an engineering background and now work in acquisitions. We are getting slammed with supply chain issues just like automakers and it's requiring a lot of creative thinking to keep things moving. Maybe this is a similar situation.

Regarding engine designation / RPO code, I agree it might be called LT3, or maybe something else entirely. I don't think it really matters what it's actually called and I think people are getting too hung up on this LT1 / LT2 thing. In a previous post I called it an "LT1.5" because I think you are describing exactly what we would get, if this actually happens - an LT1 updated with LT2 content.

Regarding the engine manufacturing plants, I have no frame of reference, but you make a good point about LT1 production being a drop in the bucket at the engine plants. That's also a great point about Lordstown. I have a 2012 Cruze and have driven it by it's "home" several times. I think it was sad they closed it but I imagine GM had decided on the amount of capacity they needed which is why it made sense to them to shutter Lordstown.

I think the big difference here is they are planning to keep LGR and convert it to BEV production. But it's expensive to idle plants so my supposition is GM will keep the Camaro going until they are ready to make the switch to whatever new vehicle is built there. If they need to keep the Camaro going for a few more years until that happens, switching to this "LT3" (or whatever we are calling it) may actually make sense from a supply chain and/or emissions regulations standpoint, or some other reason we are not aware of. Yes it's expensive to make this change, it may even lose them money, but it may be a case of losing them less money than staying with the LT1 or axing the Camaro and idling LGR.

The one thing I don't have a good feeling for is the costs involved in these different scenarios. What's the UAW buyout (assuming there is one)? What does it cost to idle a plant? What does it cost for emissions certifications? This is all rhetorical, I'm not expecting answers because I imagine alot of that is insider knowledge, but it's definitely a gap in my knowledge on this topic.

Thank you again for engaging in this discussion and for all the knowledge.

[3.8TransAM]

LT2 could be next to a near drop in for LT1 regardless of the wiring system architecture used. Nothing different used on the engine, no active runners or the like, cam, intake and exhaust are it, so retuning the existing architecture would be easy way to go about it. GM does make some great things when platform is at the end, GN, Impala SS, Sixthgen :-(

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 3.8TransAM

LT2 could be next to a near drop in for LT1 regardless of the wiring system architecture used. Nothing different used on the engine, no active runners or the like, cam, intake and exhaust are it, so retuning the existing architecture would be easy way to go about it. GM does make some great things when platform is at the end, GN, Impala SS, Sixthgen :-(

In the video I linked earlier, Tadge Juechter went into some detail on how difficult it was to adapt the small block architecture to have both intake and exhaust in the opposite orientations of where they are with other small blocks (like LT1, for example). Then there’s the mounting of the sump. At a long block level they are very similar, except cams and pistons are different. Maybe a few other innards, but probably swappable. But the dressed LT2 will not drop under a Camaro hood anymore than a dressed LT1 would drop in behind the driver of a C8.

[s346k]

how come no one is talking at the LT2's factory wideband?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by s346k

how come no one is talking at the LT2's factory wideband?

I don’t understand the question.

[s346k]

lots of discussion about the LT2 parts. not one mention of the factory wideband. i don't think gm has ever offered this on any other vehicle...?

[MatthewAMEL]

Originally Posted by s346k

lots of discussion about the LT2 parts. not one mention of the factory wideband. i don't think gm has ever offered this on any other vehicle...?

It's part of the Global B system. The LT4 in the CT5 BW has a factory wideband also. Gives the ECU a much wider range of adjustment than the older arch.

[DannyC]

The only thing I heard him say they were discontinuing was putting the 6.2 in the 1LT or any version below SS.

As far as changing to the LT2? I would think they would be ready to go electric by then.

[Timbo-1LE]

Concur with Sindri, a few parts, cam, intake, and switch to wet sump, and then via existing ecu or new. I bet some on this forum could have installed in a week. I question what they will do with Nascar, while you think it would sell camaro's, it sells the brand and more specifically trucks to that market, just my view...

[Calvear0]

https://youtu.be/07TbskTe78Y

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Coded4SS

I'm sure you saw a graph a Dyno whatever .but it's not 20hp. It just isn't seems it varies (of course) some people max at 10hp. Dynos vary, but no your not doing 20hp on a CAI on a stock car. Unless the Dyno is very generous

I guess 423 WHP could be a bit generous on a dyno, so I see your point. So going by relative percentage, we are looking at a 3% to 4% gain, then.

Got any link/source to your observations?

Originally Posted by Calvear0

https://youtu.be/07TbskTe78Y

LG is known to release some clickbait stuff nowadays.

If you really know the inside news like MartinjIm does, then you probably won't be allowed to confirm or deny anything, unless you enjoy having an army of lawyers after you.

Will believe it when we see it, though I highly doubt we will see it.

[6sigma]

I think it is plausible. After all, they did put a manual trans in a car that was never designed for it (CT5). If GM decided to put an updated LT1.5 or modified LT2 into Camaro I am sure they could do it. Even more plausible is the LT5 in a ZLE. That would be a very cool sendoff for ICE Camaro, and GM seems to be feeling a bit sentimental these days with the Blackwing cars.