Jump to content

  •  

Latest Reviews


Meet The New LT1 V8 For The C7

Chevrolet Corvette LT1 V8 C7

William Maley
Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com
October 24, 2012

Earlier this morning, General Motors debuted a brand new 6.2L LT1 V8 engine that will be in the seventh-generation Corvette.The new LT1 is full of new tech and comes with some impressive specs.

The new 6.2L V8 will produce 450 HP and 450 pound-feet of torque. That can propel the C7 to 60 in under 4.0 seconds, which puts it within a hair of the 2012 Corvette Z06's 0-60 time of 3.7 seconds. Fuel economy is impressive, with GM claiming that the C7 will deliver up to 26 mpg highway.

The new technology on the new LT1 V8 includes direct injection with “on demand” adjustable pressure, variable valve timing, a twisted-head design, and cylinder-deactivation. The new LT1 will also be claimed 40-pounds lighter and four inches shorter than BMW's 4.4L twin-turbo V8.

The new LT1 V8 will be built at GM's Tonawanda plant, the same place where the first Chevy Small Block V8 was built in 1955.


Press Release is on Page 2





  • 0


28 Comments

That is a good engine there. I am impressed and cannot wait to see what the Z-06 mill have to offer.
    • 0
  • Quote
:metal: Rock On GM! :metal:

I am excited by this engine and will be waiting to see what the Performance division does to take it to the next level. I suspect this engine has a ton more potential than they are initially giving in the base corvette.

So BMW does 400HP/450ft lbs in a twin turbo V8 that is only 4.4L and this 6.2L is smaller and yet more powerful.

Seems this engine will have a great range of power capabilities. :D
    • 0
  • Quote
Fascinating specs.

I do wonder about the fuel pump under the manifold thing though...
    • 0
  • Quote
Now that it's out in the sun, here's summary of what made it and what didn't...

What Made it
  • Direct Injection
  • Synchronous Variable Valve Timing
  • Cylinder Deactivation
What didn't make it
  • Cam-in-cam independent Variable Valve Timing
  • Dual In-bloc Cam
  • Hemispherical Combustion Chamber w/ 3-valves
  • Raised Camshaft location (lighter valvetrain mass / higher rpm capability) -- AFM lifters can't cope anyway so it's moot
  • Variable Ratio Rocker assembly
  • Variable Volume Intake manifold
  • Variable Length Intake Runner Assembly
  • Non-Acoustic Knock Sensing (Ionic Knock detection via sparking plugs)
In retrospect I can say the following:-
  • Power came in 20 hp less than my previous expectations (450 vs 470)*
  • Torque cam in 12 lb-ft higher than my previous expectations (450 vs 438**)
  • Compression came in 0.7 points lower than my expectations (11.5 vs 12.2)
  • Cam-in-Cam didn't make it (I expected it to)
  • We can finally put the 5.5 liter mythology to bed I guess.
* This may indicate a relatively low red line (perhaps 6000~6100 rpm) perhaps imposed by the the cylinder deactivation system.
** 438 lb-ft was based on the limit of the 6L80 transmission.


Regardless, this engine is in the ballpark of expectations and will serve the C7 very well. It will also serve Cadillac very well should they elect to adopt it for the ATS-V. It is, afterall, a lighter, smaller, more powerful and more torque engine than the Ford DOHC 5.0. It is also lighter, simpler and less expensive than Bi-turbo V6es of a similar output.
    • 0
  • Quote
Nice engine and I wish they would put the Small Block name to rest as it deserves it's own heritage. The number of parts that carry over from the LS engine can fit in a small Zip Loc bag.

Well the injectors will be buried for those who don't like the noise. I just hope they are easy to get to to replace them or that they are at the least durable.

Too many idiots on Autoblog are complaining only 450 HP from 6.2? They seem to not read all the words that it will be no less than 450 HP. I still expect 460-470 HP by the release time. They said the base Vette would run with the present Grandsport.

I still do not expect this in the ATS V but it will be in the new CTSV.

The Z06 and ZR1 replacments should be interesting.

I note they played with the valves like many of the aftermarket head companys have to get better flow. Trick Flow started it and many others hav followed with canting the valves. We found them to work years ago and GM has their own version now.

Owners who add fuel pressure monitors will be shocked when they see over 2000 PSI on the High pressure pump side.

What I found interesting was the choice of 6.2. They said it was because when the engine would go into V4 mode that there was too little power in the smaller engine. They said by increasing the size it gave the V4 mode enough power to remain in V4 mode for more MPG. The smaller engine would have been in V8 mode more and payed the MPG penalty. It had noting to do with efficency but with available power with 4 cylinders cut out.
    • 0
  • Quote

I still do not expect this in the ATS V but it will be in the new CTSV.

The Z06 and ZR1 replacments should be interesting.


Regardless of whether the ATS-V gets this engine, the CTS-V won't. The CTS-V is already at 556hp with the current LSA engine. It's replacement will need to be either a turbocharged or supercharged version of the LT1 to be at or above the current performance level.
    • 0
  • Quote
Anyone else have the feeling that a 5.5L LTx engine is still in the cards?
    • 0
  • Quote

Anyone else have the feeling that a 5.5L LTx engine is still in the cards?


No, but the 5.3 might be.
    • 0
  • Quote
BTW, just reading off GM's Powerpoint Slide, the output rpms appear to be

Posted Image

450 bhp @ 6000 rpm
450 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm -- with at least 400 lb-ft (88.9%) available from 2000 to 6200 rpm
    • 0
  • Quote
Nice numbers. Though ultimately I think I'm more of a smaller displacement, higher rev V8 sort of guy. I hope they also offer a 5.3L version with the same power, less torque, and a redline that exceeds 7,000 RPM.

I had a Mustang GT 5.0 loaner two weeks ago, and man was that motor addictive. Had the grumble of an American V8 at low revs and the zing of an M3 or RS4 near redline.
    • 0
  • Quote

Nice numbers. Though ultimately I think I'm more of a smaller displacement, higher rev V8 sort of guy. I hope they also offer a 5.3L version with the same power, less torque, and a redline that exceeds 7,000 RPM.

I had a Mustang GT 5.0 loaner two weeks ago, and man was that motor addictive. Had the grumble of an American V8 at low revs and the zing of an M3 or RS4 near redline.


Not sure if we will see a smaller V8 based on the Cylinder delete option. This is where GM claims a lot of MPG is gained and the smaller displacment just does not handle the power well with 4 cylinders.. They claim it would remain in V8 mode too much. Now if there were not a cylinder delet option being used we would have seen the smaller engine.

The think with this engine is it will have torque from down low and hold it most of the way up like my Turbo Eco does. This will give this engine a feel unlike the LS3.

The coming Turbo V6 will be the engine with more and faster revs but it too will also have low end torque that will remain all the way up. It will also have a noticable lack lag too.
    • 0
  • Quote


I still do not expect this in the ATS V but it will be in the new CTSV.

The Z06 and ZR1 replacments should be interesting.


Regardless of whether the ATS-V gets this engine, the CTS-V won't. The CTS-V is already at 556hp with the current LSA engine. It's replacement will need to be either a turbocharged or supercharged version of the LT1 to be at or above the current performance level.


The CTSV will get an engine based on this and we all know it will have a turbo or more than likely a supercharger. MY statment is that this engine is the base for all variation coming at GM. They may slap a supercharger on it and a LT5 name but it will be based on this engine with some changes just as the LS engines were. There will be a family of LT engines just as the LS engines.

If anything I have heard numbers in the 600+ range may be in the offing for the CTS and the number 750 HP ZRI have been rumored. Just have to wait and see, but both are very easily done.

Anyone else have the feeling that a 5.5L LTx engine is still in the cards?


There was talk of a V6 version of this engine but nothing to prove that yet.
    • 0
  • Quote

BTW, just reading off GM's Powerpoint Slide, the output rpms appear to be

Posted Image

450 bhp @ 6000 rpm
450 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm -- with at least 400 lb-ft (88.9%) available from 2000 to 6200 rpm


Good thing is that even after 5252 rpm, the power does not drop more than 5 hp to the redline. The torque curve is flatter than LS3.
    • 0
  • Quote
What is it with GM and these "required" fluids? First it was Dexcool antifreeze, and that was somewhat of a disaster with all the clogged-up radiators and engine cooling passages. Now they're requiring the use of this Dexos semi-synthetic motor oil. I hope this doesn't turn into another bad idea. I think I read where they'll void your warranty unless Dexos is used and documented, if someone can confirm or deny for me.

It's one thing, for example, to "recommend" Mobil 1 in the Corvette, but this Dexos situation, requiring its use on everything from Spark to XTS, seems like extortion to me. Besides... SO many things happen when cars are in the hands of customers. Jiffy Lube... Wal-Mart service centers... any number of mom-and-pop garages will be changing the oil on these cars in years hence. I predict another debacle and future ill will toward GM on behalf of customers over this.

Seems like any 5W-30 should suffice. GM is citing fuel economy concerns as a reason for instituting this policy, but it sounds to me like they want everyone to go to the dealership for maintenance... or else.
    • 0
  • Quote
Dexos is just an oil rating. There are many many different Dexos rated oils. They are all basically the 5w-30 version of a brand's full synthetic product. It's actually better than recommending Mobile 1 because it is now not brand specific. Ask yourself this, why would GM want to be stamping Mobile1's brand on the engine cover of all of their products?

But there is very little debate over whether synthetic oil is more healthy for an engine or not. It is... and it is within GM's rights to require its use for the car to be under warranty.
    • 0
  • Quote
See how that works? Thanks for posting that link. So, a whole host of brands are approved for the Dexos1 rating, both full synthetic and synthetic blends. That will make a lot of GM buyers feel a bit better about this new requirement, even though it does require customers to spend more money on oil... and they'll just go back every 3,000 miles like the sticker on the windshield says, they won't pay attention to the DIC or the owner's manual.
    • 0
  • Quote

Now that it's out in the sun, here's summary of what made it and what didn't...

What Made it

  • Direct Injection
  • Synchronous Variable Valve Timing
  • Cylinder Deactivation
What didn't make it
  • Cam-in-cam independent Variable Valve Timing
  • Dual In-bloc Cam
  • Hemispherical Combustion Chamber w/ 3-valves
  • Raised Camshaft location (lighter valvetrain mass / higher rpm capability) -- AFM lifters can't cope anyway so it's moot
  • Variable Ratio Rocker assembly
  • Variable Volume Intake manifold
  • Variable Length Intake Runner Assembly
  • Non-Acoustic Knock Sensing (Ionic Knock detection via sparking plugs)
In retrospect I can say the following:-
  • Power came in 20 hp less than my previous expectations (450 vs 470)*
  • Torque cam in 12 lb-ft higher than my previous expectations (450 vs 438**)
  • Compression came in 0.7 points lower than my expectations (11.5 vs 12.2)
  • Cam-in-Cam didn't make it (I expected it to)
  • We can finally put the 5.5 liter mythology to bed I guess.
* This may indicate a relatively low red line (perhaps 6000~6100 rpm) perhaps imposed by the the cylinder deactivation system.
** 438 lb-ft was based on the limit of the 6L80 transmission.


Regardless, this engine is in the ballpark of expectations and will serve the C7 very well. It will also serve Cadillac very well should they elect to adopt it for the ATS-V. It is, afterall, a lighter, smaller, more powerful and more torque engine than the Ford DOHC 5.0. It is also lighter, simpler and less expensive than Bi-turbo V6es of a similar output.


This LT1 engine weights 465 lbs. Coyote v8 weights 430 lbs. it is also heavier than M156 or M159 engine from Mercedes.
    • 0
  • Quote

See how that works? Thanks for posting that link. So, a whole host of brands are approved for the Dexos1 rating, both full synthetic and synthetic blends. That will make a lot of GM buyers feel a bit better about this new requirement, even though it does require customers to spend more money on oil... and they'll just go back every 3,000 miles like the sticker on the windshield says, they won't pay attention to the DIC or the owner's manual.


Unless they are really stupid customers to ignore their engine info center, most people should come to realize that we are at the end of days with the BS 3000 miles you change the oil. That was true of older cars of the 90's and older than that, but not with todays cars and the use of synthetic or blends, you should be able to go 7500 to 10K miles now on an oil change.
    • 0
  • Quote
Yes sir, I use the DIC to tend to my oil changes. But these oil change shops are still pushing 3k oil changes, and writing it on the oil change sticker.
    • 0
  • Quote

Yes sir, I use the DIC to tend to my oil changes. But these oil change shops are still pushing 3k oil changes, and writing it on the oil change sticker.


I use Albert as my "consumer focus group - subgroup: people dumb about cars".... in the nicest way possible of course. Anyone who drives a Honda or Toyota has been conditioned into thinking that when the "Service Required Soon" light starts flashing, then it is time to get an oil change. It could be 3,000 miles or 15,000 miles... they ignore the sticker as long as that light isn't on.
    • 0
  • Quote


Yes sir, I use the DIC to tend to my oil changes. But these oil change shops are still pushing 3k oil changes, and writing it on the oil change sticker.


I use Albert as my "consumer focus group - subgroup: people dumb about cars".... in the nicest way possible of course. Anyone who drives a Honda or Toyota has been conditioned into thinking that when the "Service Required Soon" light starts flashing, then it is time to get an oil change. It could be 3,000 miles or 15,000 miles... they ignore the sticker as long as that light isn't on.


Very true and now with GM, Ford and pretty much everyone telling you to just follow the computer for when to get oil changes, etc. If the computer does not tell them, most will ignore the 3K that a grease monkey puts on the window.
    • 0
  • Quote
While the MFG's are trying to make use of the better oils and the better quality engines to make you new car more economical by not having to change oil as often. The problem is it is taking money out of the pockets of oil change shops and dealer service shop.

The average car owner seldom reads the owners manual because he already knows how to drive the car and set the radio. He has had it beat through his head to change at 3,000 miles but has no idea how good oils are today and how the OLM really works and what all goes into it. Hell I just read the other day a NOX owner though he had too much fuel in his oil so he changed it and now thinks it is running smoother. The truth was he may have just had some bad gas as an oil change would not have fixed the condition he discribed.

GM should so more to explain the OLM as well as the Dexos deal. I see even many gear heads that do not understand what they are doing here. The fact is many cars in the future will need special oils and the MFG's want to be the ones who decide what they need not the oil companies. Also it add some extra income to a limited degree.

As for Dexcool there is nothing wrong with it other than the lack of knowledge. Too many people condem it because they may have had an issue but the fact is most people have never had an issue. The fact is you have to keep a good strong mix of this fluid in the system as if it is weak or has air in the system it will sludge up. The tolerance on this product is tighter than the average green prestone. If used properly there is nary an issue with this anti freeze. But then again it is the lack of info from GM on how to deal with it.

While I blame GM for not passing out the info in a better way the owners also need to accept that todays cars have changed a lot more than they think. Things we used to do the old way do not apply any longer. If you do not read or take training to keep up best to let the pros do it anymore. Case in point the new DI system is not your old fuel injection. There are things to learn and know like how high the pressure is and that many of the lines are one time use and need to be replaced if removes. But some guy at home will try to do it the old way and muck it up.
    • 0
  • Quote
The Weight is 211 kg. This is somewhat disappointing. For comparison the LS3 is a mere 183 kg, while the LS7 is 206 kg. Yes, DI, VVT and AFM add weight. But 28 kg = 62 lbs is a lot of weight.
    • 0
  • Quote
I also expect the heads are larger and would not be suprised if the strengthened the block even more. GM has been adding more structure to their engines. In many cases it is worth a little weight.. We will have to watch to see what the parts weigh in at to tell. But the engine is still not bad.
    • 0
  • Quote

The Weight is 211 kg. This is somewhat disappointing. For comparison the LS3 is a mere 183 kg, while the LS7 is 206 kg. Yes, DI, VVT and AFM add weight. But 28 kg = 62 lbs is a lot of weight.


15% is indeed some girth gain. But if you look into perspective of the Vette's weight that is equivalent to 2%. It would be interesting to see how the car sheds weight.
    • 0
  • Quote

or Sign In