368...should I, could I, would I - ZR-1 Net Registry Forums

Paul Workman · 10-15-2012

Hib...

I believe you've got the wrong idea somewhere about Pete, in particular, but other purveyors of the LT5 in general. And, it is clear too that you've been out of touch with developments taken place with that engine over the past 20 years.

Of course you're absolutely correct that we wouldn't even be having this discussion were it not for those pioneers of 20 years ago - and we're forever greatful to them too!

Case in point, here is some modding based on Lingenfelter's work that is being applied to this head. Wanna talk about un-shrouding the intake valves? That is only a beginning.

I'm sure you can appreciate that truth is where you find it. It matters not if truth came from talented professional automotive engineers with an alphabet of credentials following their names, or some dedicated experimenter in his garage that makes a profound discovery...or two...or...

The misunderstanding may have come from your initial post: "Would I..." It seemed to me and others too, including Pete, that you were genuinely asking for comment on your 368 plan. I can't imagine you would have received the outpouring of information about other options if it was clear from the start that your question was a rhetorical one (or so it seems).

So, here's my point: It would be a mistake to think the sun rises and sets on the LSx (pushrod) platform as "state of the art". Taking nothing away from the LSx platform, much of the hub-bub it garners comes from cubic inches and supercharging and (in no small part) modern computer controls (not to mention the incessant exuberance pouring out of some automotive "tech writer's" articles these days). To say pushrod technology eclipses the DOHC architecture as "state of the art" completely dismisses the efficiency and dynamic versitility and flexibility afforded by DOHC. (You might like to witness the comparison to the NA LS7 and a 7.0L LT5 and see if it doesn't leave you scratching your head!)

Much is being done now with DOHC platforms, e.g., cam phasing and even 5 valves/cylinder. There in lies an opportunity for one such as yourself to shed some light on these latest inovations and compare them and some innovations to the LT5. It would be of immense interest to members of the Registry and be an opportunity to really put a spotlight on those efforts of 20 years ago, and what may have ultimately been the result if GM (Corvette) had gone another path!

Perhaps a visit to the digs known as the "FBI" would be a chance to meet Pete, make some new friends, meet some of the "behind the scenes" talent residing here. It would be a chance to see firsthand what is being done, has been done, and hear some of the technical discussions over one of the famous (infamous?) FBI pizza nights. Just a thought. I expect you'd come away with a new perspective and appreciation for what Pete and others were sharing with regard to alternatives to the 368 option.

There are "doers" and those that only write about it (present company excepted). For the latter to take on the former is like the preverbal "bringing a knife to a gunfight!"

Peace be with you and good luck on whatever path you decide. And, even if it is just 368, let me plant a seed: Marc recently revisited a 368 (done by another well known tuner) that was putting down about what you said yours does now. After Marc "laid hands" on it he ended up with 450 hp to the rear wheels on stock cams. Q: How many 6.0L LSx motors put down those numbers with a smooth 750 rpm idle? Are we sure the LSx isn't at or near it's pinnacle, whereas the really impressive performance numbers are now being made by "that other" (non-pushrod) platform? How 'bout a stock bottom end LT5, NA with street manners that is making 474 hp to the rear wheels? I'm sure the pioneers would be proud!

Look forward to your thoughts, and even more the chance for you to meet some of this infamous gang of carbide cowboys of the "FBI", break bread and smoke some rubber. Butcha better hurry... Up here in da nawth cuntree snow will be a flying soon enough!

P.

Blue Flame Restorations · 10-15-2012

If I were writing the check, the 368 would not be a consideration since there are more cost effective $$$/per HP options available these days, thanks to guys like Pete and Marc.

The old saying, "you get what you pay for" seems to resonate with me.

scottfab · 10-15-2012

Hib
You should step up the the bigger cubes the FBI offers.
Maybe not the top cubes but North of 400.
What's a few bucks? And the write-up you could do
would help the ZR-1 and Corvettes in general not
to mention yourself.

10-15-2012	#1
Paul Workman Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Squires (near Ava MO in the Mark Twain N'tl Forest) - Missouri Posts: 6,466	Re: 368...should I, could I, would I Hib... I believe you've got the wrong idea somewhere about Pete, in particular, but other purveyors of the LT5 in general. And, it is clear too that you've been out of touch with developments taken place with that engine over the past 20 years. Of course you're absolutely correct that we wouldn't even be having this discussion were it not for those pioneers of 20 years ago - and we're forever greatful to them too! Case in point, here is some modding based on Lingenfelter's work that is being applied to this head. Wanna talk about un-shrouding the intake valves? That is only a beginning. I'm sure you can appreciate that truth is where you find it. It matters not if truth came from talented professional automotive engineers with an alphabet of credentials following their names, or some dedicated experimenter in his garage that makes a profound discovery...or two...or... The misunderstanding may have come from your initial post: "Would I..." It seemed to me and others too, including Pete, that you were genuinely asking for comment on your 368 plan. I can't imagine you would have received the outpouring of information about other options if it was clear from the start that your question was a rhetorical one (or so it seems). So, here's my point: It would be a mistake to think the sun rises and sets on the LSx (pushrod) platform as "state of the art". Taking nothing away from the LSx platform, much of the hub-bub it garners comes from cubic inches and supercharging and (in no small part) modern computer controls (not to mention the incessant exuberance pouring out of some automotive "tech writer's" articles these days). To say pushrod technology eclipses the DOHC architecture as "state of the art" completely dismisses the efficiency and dynamic versitility and flexibility afforded by DOHC. (You might like to witness the comparison to the NA LS7 and a 7.0L LT5 and see if it doesn't leave you scratching your head!) Much is being done now with DOHC platforms, e.g., cam phasing and even 5 valves/cylinder. There in lies an opportunity for one such as yourself to shed some light on these latest inovations and compare them and some innovations to the LT5. It would be of immense interest to members of the Registry and be an opportunity to really put a spotlight on those efforts of 20 years ago, and what may have ultimately been the result if GM (Corvette) had gone another path! Perhaps a visit to the digs known as the "FBI" would be a chance to meet Pete, make some new friends, meet some of the "behind the scenes" talent residing here. It would be a chance to see firsthand what is being done, has been done, and hear some of the technical discussions over one of the famous (infamous?) FBI pizza nights. Just a thought. I expect you'd come away with a new perspective and appreciation for what Pete and others were sharing with regard to alternatives to the 368 option. There are "doers" and those that only write about it (present company excepted). For the latter to take on the former is like the preverbal "bringing a knife to a gunfight!" Peace be with you and good luck on whatever path you decide. And, even if it is just 368, let me plant a seed: Marc recently revisited a 368 (done by another well known tuner) that was putting down about what you said yours does now. After Marc "laid hands" on it he ended up with 450 hp to the rear wheels on stock cams. Q: How many 6.0L LSx motors put down those numbers with a smooth 750 rpm idle? Are we sure the LSx isn't at or near it's pinnacle, whereas the really impressive performance numbers are now being made by "that other" (non-pushrod) platform? How 'bout a stock bottom end LT5, NA with street manners that is making 474 hp to the rear wheels? I'm sure the pioneers would be proud! Look forward to your thoughts, and even more the chance for you to meet some of this infamous gang of carbide cowboys of the "FBI", break bread and smoke some rubber. Butcha better hurry... Up here in da nawth cuntree snow will be a flying soon enough! P. Last edited by Paul Workman; 10-16-2012 at 10:13 AM. Reason: spelling

10-15-2012	#2
Blue Flame Restorations Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Pendleton, IN Posts: 3,899	Re: 368...should I, could I, would I If I were writing the check, the 368 would not be a consideration since there are more cost effective $$$/per HP options available these days, thanks to guys like Pete and Marc. The old saying, "you get what you pay for" seems to resonate with me. __________________ 1988 KOH Prototype EX5023 sold 1990 ZR-1 #444 Convertible 1990 ZR-1 Black #966 1991 ZR-1 Quazar Blue #296 1957 Duntov SS Project Last edited by Blue Flame Restorations; 10-15-2012 at 12:37 PM.

10-15-2012	#3
scottfab Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Portland Oregon metro area (Washington side) Posts: 3,193	Re: 368...should I, could I, would I Hib You should step up the the bigger cubes the FBI offers. Maybe not the top cubes but North of 400. What's a few bucks? And the write-up you could do would help the ZR-1 and Corvettes in general not to mention yourself. __________________ Scott Vett owner since 1979._It's about the car and the people