Here some interesting facts for the new in 2008 LS9 engine.
– It was a combination of upgraded LS3 and LS7 components and took 3 years to develop
– All 2000 units were hand-assembled in GM’s Performance Build Center in Wixom, Michigan
-It displaced 6.2 liters
– Bore and stroke 4.06×3.62 with a compression ratio of 9.1:1
– It had reinforced bulkhead to improve block stiffness and used six bolt steel main caps.
– Of note the headgasketts were cut to the shape of the LS3 but had four layers of steel.
– Remember the “tornado”? That device that was sold and was added to your air intake and was supposed to funnel air into your carb or throttle body, booting HP? Well the LS9’s intake had “swirl ring” to improve the air flow.
– Sported the Eaton R1900 2 rotor supercharger, pumping out 2.3 liters of compressed air, but that’s all – this air was then super cooled by the Behr intercooler, that knocked off about 140 degrees.
– The valve were titanium on the intake side and stainless steel on the exhaust side
– The pistons were forged aluminum and the rods were titanium.
Here’s some output numbers:
At 1000 rpm – 300 hp and 320 lb-ft torque
The maximum was approx. 620 hp coming at 6500 rpm and 595 lb-ft of torque coming at 4000 rpm with nearly all of its top end torque available between 2600 and 6000 rpm.
From square boxes to sloping roof lines to coke bottle shapes, car lines have evolved. Sometimes they just went way wrong.
I’ve had my fair share of cars and their shapes and lines were polar opposites. My 1966 Imapla (my first car) was long and sleek, my next car was a Dodge Dart boxy but with a good roof line. Oh but it got worse, my first nearly new car was ….wait for it…..a Ford Granada. Yes…boxy…maybe a little roof line, but it got me around.
After that a series of car including a ’70 Chevelle (you know those great lines), a European Ford Escort (while stationed overseas) and a 83 Camaro (that had great lines on that one). I owned one more Granada and a VW Rabbit (diesel) and two Toyota Celicas ( like the lies of those), a couple pickups and my two Vettes and my Mustang. They spanned decades and many different design lines.
Some of the worse, in my opinion, were some of the best-selling and some that go for huge money now that they are classic muscle cars.
The absolute worse were the pumpkin or watermelon seed cars (that’s my coinage).
Here’s an example: 1996 Chevy Impala
A far cry from my 1966 Impala’s lines
1966 Chevy Impala
Now, I was looking at the lines of my ’70 Mustang and I’d have to say compared to the ’70 Dodge Super Bee the lines (and include the graphics, moldings and even panel seams) the Mustangs lines are much cleaner.
Here is an outlined image of the Dodge:
Dodge
I tried to be fair with my hand drawn lines. The flow of the graphic and their awkward end as they go to the relatively square door make it almost look like the designers said..”OH Crap!!! We forgot the door!!” The fenders have nice lines, as do the quarter panels, but in total it isn’t smooth. HOLD ON, before any of you Mopar folks get all worked up, I’d own a Dodge Super Bee, in a heart beat, especially if someone parked it out side my house and tossed me the keys…and I drive that 383 like I stole it!!!
Now look at the lines of my ’70 Mustang…(are you sick of seeing it yet?)
70 Mustang lines
Just the forward edge (hinged) of the door being shaped it a big plus in my opinion. The sloping of the roof-line into the trunk is another smooth difference, and keep in mind this is just the coupe, not the fast back for the sports back, relatively speaking my Mustang is rather square compared to it siblings, the Mach I and Boss models. Compare the side window openings. The Dodge is very angular, the Mustang’s has a smoother flow.
I could go on and on, we could talk about the 70’s Volares or the even move into the 80’s and talk about the Ford Fairmonts or Chryslers K-Car (I can hear Bill now!!!) but let me hear from you. What do you have to say about car lines, past or present?
Tokyo 17 Car Design Forum opens for registration. Our Tokyo 2017 Car Design Forum has launched, and the website is open for registrations now. More News …
Hyundai-Kia design chief outlines car design philosophy – Interview. by: Roger Stansfield. Materials at the heart of the Paris Motor Show. 20 Oct 2016 …
I was reading an article recently in one of my favorite periodical…you know…from the best auto magazine publishing company, IMHO, Hemmings, specifically Muscle Machines. The article was entitled Lessons of Originality and written by Terry McGean. I enjoy his pieces in HMM.
This article pointed out the importance of all original muscle car specimens, used as models for restoration and an understanding of how they were built, meaning exactly, how and why they were put together in the manner they were. This is a very valid point.
Terry goes on to say that today’s restorations are often taken too far and lose some of their original character. Again, another valid fact one can’t argue, but…..
For example, my 1970 Mustang coupe’s shock towers were stamped out and the car assembled without access to grease fittings. The towers had to be altered, in most cases just cut with a torch, so that the fittings could be reached. That is a known engineering/factory flaw and is a cool ( I think) characteristic that makes it unique. ‘Fixing’ that by replacing with re-manufactured parts with the cut out already there (I don’t believe these exist..but humor me here..ok..I know you usually do..and thanks for that!!) would be disappointing . It’s not like a safety hazard or something serious.
1970 Mustang Shock tower with cut out for grease fitting.
But there is just too much emphasis placed on some ‘original’ characteristics, like the correct paint mark or undercoating on parts. Irregular panel alignment or even one of the bigger deals, paint, specifically what is known as orange peel or that somewhat dimpled look to some factory paint jobs, are considered the epitome of originality and should re-create. To me that is just nonsense.
If you were to look at the side of my 07 Corvette you’ll notice the orange peel effect which looks like the surface of …. yes…an orange. This is said to be very important when judging a car in some levels of the business. But back in the days when I worked in my father’s body shop businesses, orange peel was a product of sloppy work. That is Terry’s point as well, that the cars were assembled with much less care, a lot less care than, of course we take with restoration. (More on that in a bit.)
Here is where I personally begin to draw the line about ‘caring’ whether a car is “restored” to original. First, if it’s restored, it’s not original or re-phrased – “It’s only original once!” (Don’t worry I’m going to drag you down that discussion path too far.) Second, small things like the realignment of the doors or hood or other panels doesn’t make it any more unoriginal if it’s restored nor does it distract from the car at all. The art of the restoration is what is really important and minor improvements are nearly unavoidable.
Let me use the restoration (we’ll call it “Part I”) of my 1970 Mustang coupe. I intended to restore it to what was possible back in 1969-1970 then the cars were built. Everything is period, not original to the car (swapped a 1970 302 for the original 250) but available as a possible option. I love the feel of this car, it still performs as it did back then, even with the aligned hood. At this point in its life span the car is as close to original as it’s going to get (it still has drum brakes). I’ve realigned the panels, I’ve replaced the motor mounts with polyurethane. In the next round of restoration the car will enter its “restro-mod” phase. It will take the Mustang way past the line I drew the first time around.
And why not? Hey…come…on, we project so much emotion in on our cars…’She’s just not running right’ or ‘That car just doesn’t like the cold’. Why not project that they all wish to grow and to change to become more than they were?!??! (Too much of a stretch…let me re-read it…..hang on…mmm….umm…………yeah too much…since I already typed it…I’ll leave it…no sense wasting bytes…pls tell me you got that?????)
Terry mentions that the folks building cars back in the 1960’s often cared little about what they were actually doing and of course none of them were as concerned as we are when we restore them. Now I wasn’t at the factories back then, but I bet in general they took a lot of pride in their work. Of course there were those that didn’t and those that did Monday – Thursday, but on Fridays, not so much. This happens in every business. However, back then many things were done by hand and during long shifts, back-breaking work to be sure. Not to mention that the engineering tolerances weren’t nearly as tight as they are today, it just wasn’t a concern. My only experience with the manufacturing side was my visit to the Corvette assembly plant (I’m going back this year) and it’s hard to tell what everyone everyone was feeling that Tuesday, but you could see the dedication to the overall process. Union’s have made a huge impact and as has technology, they both have had negative and positive effects on the business – but that’s another article.
I worry (but not too much) that the purists will ruin the art of restoration. Terry’s article reminds us that preserving original muscles car are important, as reminder of how it use to be done. But I say they shouldn’t be the only measure of a restored car. Restore it to enjoy it.
When installing a new engine or even modifying your present power plant fuel and intake system you have a few things to consider.
Of course the size of your fuel pump, where it and the fuel filter is located, size of the filter, size of your fuel line, fuel pressure. Along with that jet size or injector size and baffling in your fuel tank. All of this is important to ensure your fuel delivery system can maintain full pressure at peak engine horsepower in high gear.
All of these need to be adjusted or “sized” to accommodate less controllable factors such as Altitude, air temperature and idiosyncracies of your fuel, like quality and octane rating. Yes even specific gravity of your gas can effect the jetting.
Here are some jetting requirement of a 750 CFM 4 barrel Holley for specific fuel, temps and altitude options:
Octane Temp. Altitude Front Jetting Rear Jetting
94 80F 0 ft 81 86
110 Race 80F 0 ft 81 83
94 80F 3000 ft 76 81
94 80F 6000 ft 73 77
94 40F 0 ft 84 89
94 120F 0 ft 78 83
Oxgenated fuels toss another factor in to be considered when determining your jetting requirements.
Studies of shown that every 1 point richer in air/fuel ratio equals only a few percent less power. Running the engine as lean as possible will increase your power but also increased combustion chamber temp, which can damage your engine.
Let me start of by saying, WOW!!! Of course that’s what I say every year I attend.
There is a lot of things to do (oh, not just car stuff but one of my better-half’s favorite — shopping — everything from jewelry to purses to beds) , people to talk to and cars, cars and cars. Car people are at their best when they are around their cars.
This year was a bit different for me, yes, I sat a watched the auction a bit, I really wanted to talk to some of the vendors (I have a project to work on) and wander around the various staging areas.
Some of my favorite vendors were the Karl Kustom Corvettes. These are re-bodied C6/Z06 underpinnings/platforms and put some of the most popular Corvette bodies the ’63 split window coupe and the 67 Roadster. These are outstanding looking cars and if they perform like the Z06 and I understand the auction price. Oh and it is not just the bodies, they’ll take your old LS3 and knock it up to 599hp and your lame LS7 to 650hp…I’m just saying!!! Check them out at: http://www.karlkustomcorvettes.com/
Normally they have some sort of racing event or car demo, last time I attended -2009 they had 4 wheel drive area to the lasted models of Jeep and Hummer, and drifting demo. This year if you registered with Ford and Chevy (they walk you up to a computer and you punch your information) you were allowed to drive two of their latest models offerings. Since I’ve driving the Mustang and the Corvette before, I opted to drive the SHO Ford Taurus and the 2011 Camaro convertible.
2011 Ford Taurus...Oh..don't laugh..this ain't your daddy's Taurus
2011 Camaro Convertible
Let me say this about the Taurus SHO …Surprising!!!! It doesn’t look like much…but get behind the wheel and you’ll feel the kick. I managed to get the rear end to slide around (much to the Ford reps surprise) on the short track they had set up. That car says “sleeper” all over it, but you’ll shock the guy next to you taking off from that red light on your way to work. (Come..ON!!! You know you do that red light mini drag thing…yeah..ya do!!!)
The Camaro was awesome as well. I pick up one if I had room to park it.
Additionally they had the Bondurant guys there and they’d give you a spinning the their Z06 as well as a racing school out of Utah, that made it known to me that they were a “real” racing school and used real race set Mustangs unlike the Bondurant’s “street’ cars. They had a couple of cars there’s as well.
Here’s a few more pics and I’ll finish up a bit later.
Bagged Restro Mustang
Entry on to the Stage. A beautiful DeSoto on it's way to the block.
1957 – 1958 saw the use of the New 283 engine in Chevy‘s including the Corvette.
The Corvette was fitted with the Rochester RamJet and RAM’s horn intake as the RPO Code 579D. But recently during some research I read that there was another modification.
It was called the Air Box Option, RPO 579E and it was perhaps the first production cold air induction system(at least for Chevy).
It consisted of a plenum box mounted on the fender well of the driver’s side. The box was fitted to an opening in the bulkhead next to the radiator with an air filter inside. The duck work ran to the fuelies injection unit.
Records indicate that there were only 43 produced in 1957.
Oh yes, believe it or not, the 283 put the Corvette at the cutting edge of performance in 1957, fitted with the RamJet FI (fuel injection) system (“fuelie” was the gearhead term for that). In 1958 the 283 was the base engine for the Corvette, but the 283 that use to put on 283 hp was tuned to create an even 290 hp. If that wasn’t enough for you (of course it wasn’t enough, two words that should never be heard together ‘enough’ and ‘horsepower’…unless…the word ‘not’ precedes them). The RamJet FI was an available option RPO 579D.
Additional configurations were dual four barrel carbs that produced 270 hp, they were either Rochester or Carter AFB. The cam was changed in 1958 to give 0.398 inches of lift, improvements made to get more oil to the lifters and the exhaust manifold was reworked, called the Ram Horn’s manifold. There was a change in how the 283 was mounted. Chevy used the 3 point system with a mount on each side and one at the rear of the engine at the transmission.
Intake manifold for the 283 Double Quad
Dual Quad set up on a 283
In 1961 the FI jumped the engines’ horsepower to 315. (Hey, the base corvette in 2007 was 400 hp.) The FI wasn’t the only improvement for the 283 in 1961. It was treated with a set of solid lifter, improved heads and hydraulic cam which helped the block rich 315 hp, easily. This would be as far as the 283 would go in horsepower – in production. 1961 was also the last time the dual four barrel carbs were available as an optional configuration.
By 1962 the 283 was replaces by an entirely new engine the 327 (that’s another mini series) as the premier Chevy small block. The 283 was dropped from the a power plant for the Corvette to a base engine for Chevy’s passenger and used from 1963 to 1964. Its horsepower dropped to 170 and 195 for two configurations. A small bright was a four barrel configuration for 1965-67 that produced 220 hp. (That was the configuration of my 1966 Impala convertible.)
Of note is the use of the 283 in Chevy’s light trucks with a two barrel configuration for most of the models in 1958 to 1962. It produced only 160 horsepower. For the 1963 to 1967 light truck models the hp was increased to 175.
