donjetman
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Posts
- 1,628
- Reaction score
- 2,887
Why The Gen-V LT Outshines The LS
- Thread starter donjetman
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
petethepug
Michael
LOL, there’s so much traffic on that link going to the article, it’s frozen.
Pretty sure the current issues with the LT aren’t what’s covered in that article. It’s focused on upgrading the known deficiencies of the LS.
Pretty sure the current issues with the LT aren’t what’s covered in that article. It’s focused on upgrading the known deficiencies of the LS.
Marky Dissod
Full Access Member
Pretty sure it's the first GM V8 generation specifically designed NOT to outlast the previous generation.
I can see why the cylinder case, the bottom end, and the oiling are clearly improved.
However, although direct injection does appear to be partially responsible for improved BSFC and MpGs during the CAFE MpG testing sessions,
DI lets motor oil accumulate on the intake valves' backsides, diminishing BSFC and MpGs and increasing oil consumption over time.
Note that the higher-performance versions of this V8 ALSO use port fuel injection in tandem with direct injection.
GM has upped the Active Fuel Management system's ante (aka Engine Half@$$)
with Dynamic Fuel Management (aka Cylinder Confusion - is it a V8? a V7? V6? V5? V4? V3? V2? I2? V-naught? SEVENTEEN firing orders?),
its valve-deactivation components have not been improved in terms of durability, yet now there's twice as many ... unless it's an L8T.
I can see why the cylinder case, the bottom end, and the oiling are clearly improved.
However, although direct injection does appear to be partially responsible for improved BSFC and MpGs during the CAFE MpG testing sessions,
DI lets motor oil accumulate on the intake valves' backsides, diminishing BSFC and MpGs and increasing oil consumption over time.
Note that the higher-performance versions of this V8 ALSO use port fuel injection in tandem with direct injection.
GM has upped the Active Fuel Management system's ante (aka Engine Half@$$)
with Dynamic Fuel Management (aka Cylinder Confusion - is it a V8? a V7? V6? V5? V4? V3? V2? I2? V-naught? SEVENTEEN firing orders?),
its valve-deactivation components have not been improved in terms of durability, yet now there's twice as many ... unless it's an L8T.
swathdiver
Full Access Member
In stock form the newer engines are better but to build an engine for performance, there are fewer options and it is more expensive to do so.
This is exactly why I purchased LS equipped trucks and not the newer ones.
This is exactly why I purchased LS equipped trucks and not the newer ones.
Last edited:
DI sounds great in theory till you price fuel system parts like bigger injectors and high flow high pressure pump, then as said. if you really need fuel you gotta run port injectors as well. not to even get into how much harder they are to tune because of all the injector timing stuff.
for fuel system cost alone you can have a 4.8 ls with a small turbo making more hp and getting better mileage. it's going to be a very long time before someone picks a 3 times the cost LT build because the oiling system is said to be better. the same oiling system they will. which the will probably find it's causing the stock engines to lock up.
yeah.. hard pass on the LT stuff. they do sounds better exhaust note wise at wot thou.
West 1
Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2023
- Posts
- 71
- Reaction score
- 103
I have worked on several DI systems and they are pretty impressive. Better in every way, only negative is at high miles the intake valves can get a build up like a T pee on the intake side of the valve head. Eventually this can choke off the intake flow. There are Walnut shell blasters that clean this off and you are good for another 100,000 miles.
The ones I worked on had between 85 and 150,000 miles on them. At 85 there was some sign of carbon build up but no Tpee yet. At 150,000 the Tpee’s were starting to build up. I cleaned both and got them back in service, they came to me with other engine problems the valves were done just as maintenance.
The big advantage is direct injection sprays in at such high pressure it Cools the valve and piston head. this is great for power, since no fuel is in the cylinder as the piston compresses the air it also eliminates detonation so compression can be increased to much higher levels and compression improves both economy and power.
DI engines alslo work better for turbo applications allowing Diesel like low end torque in smaller gas engines.
There are many advantages for sure with Di but drive what you wish.
My old Yukon is a 2003 with 130,000 miles now and I keep driving it. My car is a DI engine from 2012 and I like it also.
The ones I worked on had between 85 and 150,000 miles on them. At 85 there was some sign of carbon build up but no Tpee yet. At 150,000 the Tpee’s were starting to build up. I cleaned both and got them back in service, they came to me with other engine problems the valves were done just as maintenance.
The big advantage is direct injection sprays in at such high pressure it Cools the valve and piston head. this is great for power, since no fuel is in the cylinder as the piston compresses the air it also eliminates detonation so compression can be increased to much higher levels and compression improves both economy and power.
DI engines alslo work better for turbo applications allowing Diesel like low end torque in smaller gas engines.
There are many advantages for sure with Di but drive what you wish.
My old Yukon is a 2003 with 130,000 miles now and I keep driving it. My car is a DI engine from 2012 and I like it also.
petethepug
Michael
LS are ez pz for injector swap and diagnostics. LT needs to have the intake removed to access the DI units being serviced.
GM may be feeling the pain of having a V8 as robust as a Kalashnikov. Unfortunately they may be forgetting that boring out said component to 6.2L and new technology may not mix with old.
GM may be feeling the pain of having a V8 as robust as a Kalashnikov. Unfortunately they may be forgetting that boring out said component to 6.2L and new technology may not mix with old.
Last Summer my buddy that works as a tech at the local GM dealer, mentioned they have a lot of seized up engines under 20,000 miles. Waiting sometimes weeks for replacement engine. Wasn't a design flaw, iirc he said it was a problem with a batch of bad main bearings.
So here we are wanting to hang on to our LS engines. Which in fact I will do. LOL, we sound just like everybody did when Chevy moved on from the SBC generation one and two. And come to think of it, I still have my generation one SBC in my 86 Jeep CJ7. Holley 650 carbureted. It never throws me a diagnostic code. I can rebuild it for less than one cylinder head on an L92. And when it comes down to it, I would trust it on a 5000 Mile road Trip more than our 2014 Escalade.
This LS crowd is no different. Due to sheer popularity, the aftermarket will thrive and I expect prices will come way down. And you guys that are under 35 years old right now will be 62 in the near future....LOL.... Talking about how reliable your LS engine is and refusing to spend $10,000 for that contraption to pull codes on your flux capacitor on your 2052 Escalade
So here we are wanting to hang on to our LS engines. Which in fact I will do. LOL, we sound just like everybody did when Chevy moved on from the SBC generation one and two. And come to think of it, I still have my generation one SBC in my 86 Jeep CJ7. Holley 650 carbureted. It never throws me a diagnostic code. I can rebuild it for less than one cylinder head on an L92. And when it comes down to it, I would trust it on a 5000 Mile road Trip more than our 2014 Escalade.
This LS crowd is no different. Due to sheer popularity, the aftermarket will thrive and I expect prices will come way down. And you guys that are under 35 years old right now will be 62 in the near future....LOL.... Talking about how reliable your LS engine is and refusing to spend $10,000 for that contraption to pull codes on your flux capacitor on your 2052 Escalade
I consider myself a tech person, I actually like electric equipment and hybrid vehicles. but I also just don't see any point in the LT hassle. the reward isn't there. direct injection is said to be nice for turbo daily drivers, but not as good has having control of cam timing In a dual overhead cam engine is when boosted on e85.
I follow a channel that plays with the gm inline 6 engines boosted. that seems more interesting than any LT does. there's even a small amount of time being put back into the old northstar engines. once guys realized how good dual over head cams and boost is. it's a combo worth looking back into. sorry to gm, and these manufacturers that put a lot of money into designing and developing parts for LT engines but I just don't see it as even mildly interesting. either in stock form, or modified.
never say never, but meh.
I follow a channel that plays with the gm inline 6 engines boosted. that seems more interesting than any LT does. there's even a small amount of time being put back into the old northstar engines. once guys realized how good dual over head cams and boost is. it's a combo worth looking back into. sorry to gm, and these manufacturers that put a lot of money into designing and developing parts for LT engines but I just don't see it as even mildly interesting. either in stock form, or modified.
never say never, but meh.
Similar threads
