C6Performance Journal

General Data

Engine Type V8

Displacement 5.7L-5665 cc 346 CID

Bore 99.0 mm 3.898 in

Stroke 92.0 mm 3.622 in

Compression Ratio 10.1:1

Firing Order 1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3

Spark Plug Type 41-931

Spark Plug Gap 1.524 mm 0.06 in

Lubrication System 5.678 Liters 6.0 Quarts

Oil Capacity (without Oil Filter Change) 6.0 Quarts 5.7 Liters

Oil Capacity (with Oil Filter Change) 6.5 Quarts 6.151 Liters

Oil Pressure (Minimum — Hot) 41.4 kPa at 1,000 engine RPM 6.0 psig at 1,000 engine RPM

Oil Pressure (Minimum- Hot) engine RPM 124.11 kPa at 2,000 engine RPM 165.48 kPa at 4,000 engine RPM

engine RPM 18.0 psig at 2,000 engine RPM 24.0 psig at 4,000 engine RPM

Oil Type Mobil(E) 5W-30 Synthetic or Equivalent

Camshaft

Camshaft End Play 0.025-0.305 mm 0.001-0.012 in

Camshaft Journal Diameter 54.99-55.04 mm 2.164-2.166 in

Camshaft Journal Diameter Out-of-Round 0.025 mm 0.001 in

Camshaft Lobe Lift (Intake) 7.04 mm 0.277 in

Camshaft Lobe Lift (Exhaust) 7.13 mm 0.281 in

Camshaft Runout (Measured at the Intermediate Journals) 0.05 mm 0.002 in

Connecting Rod

Connecting Rod Bearing Bore Diameter 56.505-56.525 mm 2.224-2.225 in

Connecting Rod Bearing Bore Out-of-Round (Production) 0.004 mm 0.00015 in

Connecting Rod Bearing Bore Out-of-Round (Service Limit) 0.008 mm 0.0003 in

Connecting Rod Bearing Clearance (Production) 0.015-0.063 mm 0.0006-0.00248 in

Connecting Rod Bearing Clearance (Production)

Connecting Rod Bearing Clearance (Service Limit) 0.015-0.076 mm 0.0006-0.003 in

Connecting Rod Side Clearance 0.11-0.51 mm 0.00433-0.02 in

Crankshaft

Crankshaft Bearing Clearance (Production) 0.018-0.054 mm 0.0007-0.00212 in

Crankshaft Connecting Rod Journal Diameter (Production) 53.318-53.338 mm 2.0991-2.0999 in

Crankshaft Connecting Rod Journal Diameter (Service Limit) 53.308 mm (Minimum) 2.0987 in (Minimum)

Crankshaft Connecting Rod Journal Taper (Production) 0.005 mm (Maximum for 1/2 of Journal Length) 0.0002 in (Maximum for 1/2 of Journal Length)

Crankshaft Connecting Rod Journal Taper (Service Limit) 0.01 mm (Maximum) 0.0004 in (Maximum)

Crankshaft Connecting Rod Journal Out-of-Round (Production) 0.005 mm 0.0002 in

Crankshaft Connecting Rod Journal Out-of-Round (Service Limit) 0.01 mm 0.0004 in

Crankshaft End Play 0.04-0.2 mm 0.0015-0.0078 in

Crankshaft Main Journal Diameter (Production) 64.993-65.007 mm 2.558-2.559 in

Crankshaft Main Journal Diameter (Service Limit) 64.993 mm (Minimum) 2.558 in (Minimum)

Crankshaft Main Journal Out-of-Round (Production) 0.003 mm 0.000118 in

Crankshaft Main Journal Out-of-Round (Service Limit) 0.008 mm 0.0003 in

Crankshaft Main Journal Taper (Production) 0.01 mm 0.0004 in

Crankshaft Main Journal Taper (Service Limit) 0.02 mm 0.00078 in

Crankshaft Reluctor Ring Runout (Measured 1.0 mm (0.04 in) Below Tooth Diameter) 0.25 mm 0.01 in

Crankshaft Runout (at Rear Flange) 0.05 mm 0.002 in

Crankshaft Thrust Wall Runout 0.025 mm 0.001 in

Crankshaft Thrust Wall Width (Production) 26.14-26.22 mm 1.029-1.032 in

Crankshaft Thrust Wall Width (Service) 26.32 mm (Maximum) 1.036 in (Maximum)

Cylinder Bore

Cylinder Bore Diameter 99.0-99.018 mm 3.897-3.898 in

Cylinder Bore Taper Thrust Side 0.018 mm (Maximum) 0.0007 in (Maximum)

Cylinder Head

Cylinder Head Engine Block Deck Flatness (Measured within a 152.4 mm (6.0 in) area) 0.11 mm 0.004 in

Cylinder Head Engine Block Deck Flatness (Measuring the Overall Length of the Cylinder Head) 0.22 mm 0.008 in

Cylinder Head Exhaust Manifold Deck Flatness 0.22 mm 0.008 in

Cylinder Head Intake Manifold Deck Flatness 0.22 mm 0.008 in

Cylinder Head Height (Measured from the Cylinder Head Deck to the Valve Rocker Arm Cover Seal Surface) 120.2 mm (Minimum) 4.732 in (Minimum)

Engine Block

Camshaft Bearing Bore Diameters 55.063-55.088 mm 2.168-2.169 in

Engine Block Cylinder Head Deck Surface Flatness (Measured within a 152.4 mm (6.0 in) area) 0.11 mm 0.004 in

Engine Block Cylinder Head Deck Surface Flatness (Measuring the Overall Length of the Block Deck) 0.22 mm 0.008 in

Engine Block Cylinder Head Deck Height (Measuring from the Centerline of Crankshaft to the Deck Face) 234.57-234.82 mm 9.235-9.245 in

Main Bearing Bore Diameter (Production) 69.871-69.889 mm 2.750-2.751 in

Valve Lifter Bore Diameter (Production) 21.417-21.443 mm 0.843-0.844 in

Intake Manifold

Intake Manifold Cylinder Head Deck Flatness (Measured at Gasket Sealing Surfaces) 0.5 mm 0.02 in

Oil Pan and Front/Rear Cover Alignment

Oil Pan to Rear of Engine Block Alignment (at Transmission Bellhousing Mounting Surface) 0.0-0.25 mm (Maximum) 0.0-0.01 in (Maximum)

Front Cover Alignment (at Oil Pan Surface) 0.0-0.5 mm 0.0-0.02 in

Rear Cover Alignment (at Oil Pan Surface) 0.0-0.5 mm 0.0-0.02 in

Piston

Piston Outside Diameter (at Size Point) 98.964-98.982 mm 3.8962-3.8969 in

Piston to Bore Clearance (Production) 0.018-0.054 mm 0.0007-0.00212 in

Piston to Bore Clearance (Service Limit) 0.018-0.054 mm (Maximum) 0.0007-0.00212 in (Maximum)

Piston Pin

Piston Pin Clearance to Piston Bore (Production) 0.01-0.02 mm 0.0004-0.00078 in

Piston Pin Clearance to Piston Bore (Service Limit) 0.01-0.02 mm (Maximum) 0.0004-0.00078 in (Maximum)

Piston Pin Diameter 23.997-24.0 mm 0.9447-0.9448 in

Piston Pin Fit in Connecting Rod 0.02-0.043 mm (Interference) 0.00078-0.00169 in (Interference)

Piston Rings

Piston Compression Ring End Gap (Production Top) (Measured in Cylinder Bore) 0.23-0.38 mm 0.009-0.0149 in

Piston Compression Ring End Gap (Production–2nd) (Measured in Cylinder Bore) 0.44-0.64 mm 0.0173-0.0251 in

Piston Oil Ring End Gap (Production) (Measured in Cylinder Bore) 0.18-0.69 mm 0.007-0.0271 in

Piston Compression Ring End Gap (Service-Top) (Measured in Cylinder Bore) 0.23-0.38 mm (Maximum) 0.009-0.01496 in (Maximum)

Piston Compression Ring End Gap (Service–2nd)(Measured in Cylinder Bore) 0.44-0.64 mm (Maximum) 0.0173-0.0251 in (Maximum)

Piston Oil Ring End Gap (Service Limit) (Measured in Cylinder Bore) 0.18-0.69 mm (Maximum) 0.007-0.0271 in (Maximum)

Piston Compression Ring Groove Clearance (Production–Top) 0.04-0.085 mm 0.00157-0.003346 in

Piston Compression Ring Groove Clearance (Production–2nd) 0.04-0.08 mm 0.00157-0.003149 in

Piston Oil Ring Groove Clearance (Production) 0.01-0.22 mm 0.0004-0.00866 in

Piston Oil Ring Groove Clerance (Production)

Piston Compression Ring Groove Clearance (Service–Top) 0.04-0.085 mm (Maximum) 0.00157-0.003346 in (Maximum)

Piston Compression Ring Groove Clearance (Service–2nd) 0.04-0.08 mm (Maximum) 0.00157-0.003149 in (Maximum)

Piston Oil Ring Groove Clearance (Service Limit) 0.01-0.22 mm (Maximum) 0.0004-0.00866 in (Maximum)

Valve System

Valve Lifter Hydraulic Roller

Valve Rocker Arm Ratio 1.70:1

Valve Lash Net Lash–No Adjustment

Valve Face Angle 45 degrees

Valve Seat Angle 46 degrees

Valve Seat Runout 0.05 mm (Maximum) 0.002 in (Maximum)

Valve Seat Width (Intake) 1.02 mm 0.04 in

Valve Seat Width (Exhaust) 1.78 mm 0.07 in

Valve Stem Clearance (Production–Intake) 0.025-0.066 mm 0.001-0.0026 in

Valve Stem Clearance (Production–Intake) 0.025-0.066 mm 0.001-0.0026 in

Valve Stem Clearance (Production–Exhaust) 0.025-0.066 mm 0.001-0.0026 in

Valve Stem Clearance (Service–Intake) 0.093 mm (Maximum) 0.0037 in (Maximum)

Valve Stem Clearance (Service–Exhaust) 0.093 mm (Maximum) 0.0037 in (Maximum)

Valve Stem Diameter (Production) 7.955-7.976 mm 0.313-0.314 in

Valve Stem Diameter (Service) 7.9 mm (Minimum) 0.311 in (Minimum)

Valve Spring Free Length 52.9 mm 2.08 in

Valve Spring Pressure (Closed) 340 N at 45.75 mm 76 lb at 1.80 in

Valve Spring Pressure (Open) 980 N at 33.55 mm 220 lb at 1.32 in

Valve Spring Installed Height (Intake) 45.75 mm 1.8 in

Valve Spring Installed Height (Exhaust) 45.75 mm 1.8 in

Valve Lift (Intake) 11.99 mm 0.472 in

Valve Lift (Exhaust) 12.15 mm 0.479 in

Valve Guide Installed Height (Measured from the Cylinder Head Spring Seat Surface to the Top of the Valve Guide) 17.32 mm 0.682 in

Valve Stem Oil Seal Installed Height (Measured from the ValveSpring Shim to Top Edge of Seal Body) 18.1-19.1 mm 0.712-0.752 in

Approximate Fluid Capacities

Cooling System
Automatic Transmission 11.6 Liters 12.3 quarts
Manual Transmission 11.9 Liters 12.6 quarts

Engine Crankcase
With Filter 6.1 Liters 6.5 quarts
Without Filter 5.7 Liters 6.0 quarts

Fuel Tanks (Total) 72.3 Liters 19.1 gallons

Rear Axle Differential
Lubricant 1.6 Liters 1.69 quarts
Limited-Slip Additive 118 Milliliters 4.0 ounces

Transmission Fluid
Drain & Fill (Automatic Transmission) 4.7 Liters 5.0 quarts
Overhaul (Automatic Transmission) 10.2 Liters 10.8 quarts
Overhaul (Manual Transmission) 3.9 Liters 4.1 quarts

Torque vs Horsepower
Bruce Augenstein, 2002-12-01

There’s been a certain amount of discussion, in this and other files, about the concepts of horsepower and torque, how they relate to each other, and how they apply in terms of automobile performance. I have observed that, although nearly everyone participating has a passion for automobiles, there is a huge variance in knowledge. It’s clear that a bunch of folks have strong opinions (about this topic, and other things), but that has generally led to more heat than light, if you get my drift . I’ve posted a subset of this note in another string, but felt it deserved to be dealt with as a separate topic. This is meant to be a primer on the subject, which may lead to serious discussion that fleshes out this and other subtopics that will inevitably need to be addressed.

OK. Here’s the deal, in moderately plain English.

Force, Work and Time

If you have a one pound weight bolted to the floor, and try to lift it with one pound of force (or 10, or 50 pounds), you will have applied force and exerted energy, but no work will have been done. If you unbolt the weight, and apply a force sufficient to lift the weight one foot, then one foot pound of work will have been done. If that event takes a minute to accomplish, then you will be doing work at the rate of one foot pound per minute. If it takes one second to accomplish the task, then work will be done at the rate of 60 foot pounds per minute, and so on.

In order to apply these measurements to automobiles and their performance (whether you’re speaking of torque, horsepower, newton meters, watts, or any other terms), you need to address the three variables of force, work and time.

Awhile back, a gentleman by the name of Watt (the same gent who did all that neat stuff with steam engines) made some observations, and concluded that the average horse of the time could lift a 550 pound weight one foot in one second, thereby performing work at the rate of 550 foot pounds per second, or 33,000 foot pounds per minute, for an eight hour shift, more or less. He then published those observations, and stated that 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work was equivalent to the power of one horse, or, one horsepower.

Everybody else said OK.

For purposes of this discussion, we need to measure units of force from rotating objects such as crankshafts, so we’ll use terms which define a *twisting* force, such as foot pounds of torque. A foot pound of torque is the twisting force necessary to support a one pound weight on a weightless horizontal bar, one foot from the fulcrum.

Now, it’s important to understand that nobody on the planet ever actually measures horsepower from a running engine. What we actually measure (on a dynomometer) is torque, expressed in foot pounds (in the U.S.), and then we *calculate* actual horsepower by converting the twisting force of torque into the work units of horsepower.

Visualize that one pound weight we mentioned, one foot from the fulcrum on its weightless bar. If we rotate that weight for one full revolution against a one pound resistance, we have moved it a total of 6.2832 feet (Pi * a two foot circle), and, incidently, we have done 6.2832 foot pounds of work.

OK. Remember Watt? He said that 33,000 foot pounds of work per minute was equivalent to one horsepower. If we divide the 6.2832 foot pounds of work we’ve done per revolution of that weight into 33,000 foot pounds, we come up with the fact that one foot pound of torque at 5252 rpm is equal to 33,000 foot pounds per minute of work, and is the equivalent of one horsepower. If we only move that weight at the rate of 2626 rpm, it’s the equivalent of 1/2 horsepower (16,500 foot pounds per minute), and so on. Therefore, the following formula applies for calculating horsepower from a torque measurement:

Horsepower = (Torque * RPM) / 5252

This is not a debatable item. It’s the way it’s done. Period.

The Case For Torque

Now, what does all this mean in carland?

First of all, from a driver’s perspective, torque, to use the vernacular, RULES . Any given car, in any given gear, will accelerate at a rate that *exactly* matches its torque curve (allowing for increased air and rolling resistance as speeds climb). Another way of saying this is that a car will accelerate hardest at its torque peak in any given gear, and will not accelerate as hard below that peak, or above it. Torque is the only thing that a driver feels, and horsepower is just sort of an esoteric measurement in that context. 300 foot pounds of torque will accelerate you just as hard at 2000 rpm as it would if you were making that torque at 4000 rpm in the same gear, yet, per the formula, the horsepower would be *double* at 4000 rpm. Therefore, horsepower isn’t particularly meaningful from a driver’s perspective, and the two numbers only get friendly at 5252 rpm, where horsepower and torque always come out the same.

In contrast to a torque curve (and the matching pushback into your seat), horsepower rises rapidly with rpm, especially when torque values are also climbing. Horsepower will continue to climb, however, until well past the torque peak, and will continue to rise as engine speed climbs, until the torque curve really begins to plummet, faster than engine rpm is rising. However, as I said, horsepower has nothing to do with what a driver *feels*.

You don’t believe all this?

Fine. Take your non turbo car (turbo lag muddles the results) to its torque peak in first gear, and punch it. Notice the belt in the back? Now take it to the power peak, and punch it. Notice that the belt in the back is a bit weaker? Fine. Can we go on, now?

The Case For Horsepower

OK. If torque is so all-fired important, why do we care about horsepower?

Because (to quote a friend), “It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of *gearing*.

For an extreme example of this, I’ll leave carland for a moment, and describe a waterwheel I got to watch awhile ago. This was a pretty massive wheel (built a couple of hundred years ago), rotating lazily on a shaft which was connected to the works inside a flour mill. Working some things out from what the people in the mill said, I was able to determine that the wheel typically generated about 2600(!) foot pounds of torque. I had clocked its speed, and determined that it was rotating at about 12 rpm. If we hooked that wheel to, say, the drivewheels of a car, that car would go from zero to twelve rpm in a flash, and the waterwheel would hardly notice .

On the other hand, twelve rpm of the drivewheels is around one mph for the average car, and, in order to go faster, we’d need to gear it up. To get to 60 mph would require gearing the wheel up enough so that it would be effectively making a little over 43 foot pounds of torque at the output, which is not only a relatively small amount, it’s less than what the average car would need in order to actually get to 60. Applying the conversion formula gives us the facts on this. Twelve times twenty six hundred, over five thousand two hundred fifty two gives us:

6 HP.

Oops. Now we see the rest of the story. While it’s clearly true that the water wheel can exert a *bunch* of force, its *power* (ability to do work over time) is severely limited.

OK. Back to carland, and some examples of how horsepower makes a major difference in how fast a car can accelerate, in spite of what torque on your backside tells you .

A very good example would be to compare the current LT1 Corvette with the last of the L98 Vettes, built in 1991. Figures as follows:

Engine Peak HP @ RPM Peak Torque @ RPM

L98 250 @ 4000 340 @ 3200
LT1 300 @ 5000 340 @ 3600

The cars are geared identically, and car weights are within a few pounds, so it’s a good comparison.

First, each car will push you back in the seat (the fun factor) with the same authority – at least at or near peak torque in each gear. One will tend to *feel* about as fast as the other to the driver, but the LT1 will actually be significantly faster than the L98, even though it won’t pull any harder. If we mess about with the formula, we can begin to discover exactly *why* the LT1 is faster. Here’s another slice at that formula:

Torque = Horsepower * 5252 / RPM

If we plug some numbers in, we can see that the L98 is making 328 foot pounds of torque at its power peak (250 hp @ 4000), and we can infer that it cannot be making any more than 263 pound feet of torque at 5000 rpm, or it would be making more than 250 hp at that engine speed, and would be so rated. In actuality, the L98 is probably making no more than around 210 pound feet or so at 5000 rpm, and anybody who owns one would shift it at around 46-4700 rpm, because more torque is available at the drive wheels in the next gear at that point.

On the other hand, the LT1 is fairly happy making 315 pound feet at 5000 rpm, and is happy right up to its mid 5s redline.

So, in a drag race, the cars would launch more or less together. The L98 might have a slight advantage due to its peak torque occuring a little earlier in the rev range, but that is debatable, since the LT1 has a wider, flatter curve (again pretty much by definition, looking at the figures). From somewhere in the mid range and up, however, the LT1 would begin to pull away. Where the L98 has to shift to second (and throw away torque multiplication for speed), the LT1 still has around another 1000 rpm to go in first, and thus begins to widen its lead, more and more as the speeds climb. As long as the revs are high, the LT1, by definition, has an advantage.

Another example would be the LT1 against the ZR-1. Same deal, only in reverse. The ZR-1 actually pulls a little harder than the LT1, although its torque advantage is softened somewhat by its extra weight. The real advantage, however, is that the ZR-1 has another 1500 rpm in hand at the point where the LT1 has to shift.

There are numerous examples of this phenomenon. The Integra GS-R, for instance, is faster than the garden variety Integra, not because it pulls particularly harder (it doesn’t), but because it pulls *longer*. It doesn’t feel particularly faster, but it is.

A final example of this requires your imagination. Figure that we can tweak an LT1 engine so that it still makes peak torque of 340 foot pounds at 3600 rpm, but, instead of the curve dropping off to 315 pound feet at 5000, we extend the torque curve so much that it doesn’t fall off to 315 pound feet until 15000 rpm. OK, so we’d need to have virtually all the moving parts made out of unobtanium , and some sort of turbocharging on demand that would make enough high-rpm boost to keep the curve from falling, but hey, bear with me.

If you raced a stock LT1 with this car, they would launch together, but, somewhere around the 60 foot point, the stocker would begin to fade, and would have to grab second gear shortly thereafter. Not long after that, you’d see in your mirror that the stocker has grabbed third, and not too long after that, it would get fourth, but you’d wouldn’t be able to see that due to the distance between you as you crossed the line, *still in first gear*, and pulling like crazy.

I’ve got a computer simulation that models an LT1 Vette in a quarter mile pass, and it predicts a 13.38 second ET, at 104.5 mph. That’s pretty close (actually a tiny bit conservative) to what a stock LT1 can do at 100% air density at a high traction drag strip, being powershifted. However, our modified car, while belting the driver in the back no harder than the stocker (at peak torque) does an 11.96, at 135.1 mph, all in first gear, of course. It doesn’t pull any harder, but it sure as hell pulls longer . It’s also making *900* hp, at 15,000 rpm.

Of course, folks who are knowledgeable about drag racing are now openly snickering, because they’ve read the preceding paragraph, and it occurs to them that any self respecting car that can get to 135 mph in a quarter mile will just naturally be doing this in less than ten seconds. Of course that’s true, but I remind these same folks that any self-respecting engine that propels a Vette into the nines is also making a whole bunch more than 340 foot pounds of torque.

That does bring up another point, though. Essentially, a more “real” Corvette running 135 mph in a quarter mile (maybe a mega big block) might be making 700-800 foot pounds of torque, and thus it would pull a whole bunch harder than my paper tiger would. It would need slicks and other modifications in order to turn that torque into forward motion, but it would also get from here to way over there a bunch quicker.

On the other hand, as long as we’re making quarter mile passes with fantasy engines, if we put a 10.35:1 final-drive gear (3.45 is stock) in our fantasy LT1, with slicks and other chassis mods, we’d be in the nines just as easily as the big block would, and thus save face . The mechanical advantage of such a nonsensical rear gear would allow our combination to pull just as hard as the big block, plus we’d get to do all that gear banging and such that real racers do, and finish in fourth gear, as God intends.

The only modification to the preceding paragraph would be the polar moments of inertia (flywheel effect) argument brought about by such a stiff rear gear, and that argument is outside of the scope of this already massive document. Another time, maybe, if you can stand it .

At The Bonneville Salt Flats

Looking at top speed, horsepower wins again, in the sense that making more torque at high rpm means you can use a stiffer gear for any given car speed, and thus have more effective torque *at the drive wheels*.

Finally, operating at the power peak means you are doing the absolute best you can at any given car speed, measuring torque at the drive wheels. I know I said that acceleration follows the torque curve in any given gear, but if you factor in gearing vs car speed, the power peak is *it*. An example, yet again, of the LT1 Vette will illustrate this. If you take it up to its torque peak (3600 rpm) in a gear, it will generate some level of torque (340 foot pounds times whatever overall gearing) at the drive wheels, which is the best it will do in that gear (meaning, that’s where it is pulling hardest in that gear).

However, if you re-gear the car so it is operating at the power peak (5000 rpm) *at the same car speed*, it will deliver more torque to the drive wheels, because you’ll need to gear it up by nearly 39% (5000/3600), while engine torque has only dropped by a little over 7% (315/340). You’ll net a 29% gain in drive wheel torque at the power peak vs the torque peak, at a given car speed.

Any other rpm (other than the power peak) at a given car speed will net you a lower torque value at the drive wheels. This would be true of any car on the planet, so, theoretical “best” top speed will always occur when a given vehicle is operating at its power peak.

“Modernizing” The 18th Century

OK. For the final-final point (Really. I Promise.), what if we ditched that water wheel, and bolted an LT1 in its place? Now, no LT1 is going to be making over 2600 foot pounds of torque (except possibly for a single, glorious instant, running on nitromethane), but, assuming we needed 12 rpm for an input to the mill, we could run the LT1 at 5000 rpm (where it’s making 315 foot pounds of torque), and gear it down to a 12 rpm output. Result? We’d have over *131,000* foot pounds of torque to play with. We could probably twist the whole flour mill around the input shaft, if we needed to .

The Only Thing You Really Need to Know

First make sure Traction Control is disengaged (if you have it)!

Automatic: Use your left foot to step on the brake just enough to prevent the car from rolling forward, then, with your right foot, slam down the gas. Slowly release brake when you want to start moving.

Manual: Put the shifter into 1st gear. (Some people do 2nd, see what works best for you). Push the clutch in and rev it up to about 4k RPMs, then quickly remove your foot from the clutch pedal and move it over to the brake pedal. The idea is to use as little braking force as necessary to prevent the car from rolling forward. When you want to make your getaway, simply slowly release the brake pedal and you should start moving forward and leave some nice tire marks in the process!

A line lock is a device that is connected to the brake lines going to the front tires. This will allow the driver to engage only the front brakes, so that the rear brake pads are not burnt away as you do your burn out.

ALL Gen III heads are interchangable.

Here is a list of a few casting #’s:

933 97 aluminum perimeter bolt 5.7
806 97-98 aluminum perimeter bolt 5.7
853 99-00 aluminum center bolt 5.7
241 01-03 aluminum center bolt 5.7 (some late MY00 cars got 241 castings)
243 LS6 aluminum center bolt 5.7
862 and 706 99 and up 4.8-5.3 truck heads
873 99-00 LQ4 6.0 iron center bolt heads
317 01 and up LQ4 6.0 aluminum center bolt heads
035 02 and up LQ9 6.0 aluminum center bolt heads

Even more info:

Casting Number 241
Head: 1997+ LS1 5.7 Litre Passenger Car
Material: Aluminimum
Part Number:
12559806 (1997-98) Chambers = 69cc
12559853 (1999-00)
12564241 (2001-03)
Combustion Chamber Volume: 66.67cc
Compression Ratio: 10.1:1
Intake Port Volume: 200cc
Exhaust Port Volume: 70cc
Intake Valve Diameter: 2.00 inches
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.55 inches

Casting Number 243
Head: 2001 LS6 5.7 Litre Passenger Car
Material: Aluminimum
Part Number:
12564243
Combustion Chamber Volume: 64.45cc
Compression Ratio: 10.5:1
Intake Port Volume: 210cc
Exhaust Port Volume: 75cc
Intake Valve Diameter: 2.00 inches
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.55 inches

Casting Number 706
Head: 1999+ LR4 4.8 Litre Truck
1999+ LM4 /LM7 5.3 Litre Truck
Material: Aluminimum
Part Number:
12559852
12561706
Combustion Chamber Volume: 61.15cc
Compression Ratio: 9.5:1
Intake Port Volume: 200cc
Exhaust Port Volume: 70cc
Intake Valve Diameter: 1.89 inches
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.55 inches

Casting Number 373
Head: 1999-2000 LQ4 6.0 Litre Truck
Material: Cast Iron
Part Number:
12561873
Combustion Chamber Volume: 71.06cc
Compression Ratio: 9.5:1
Intake Port Volume: 210cc
Exhaust Port Volume: 75cc
Intake Valve Diameter: 2.00 inches
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.55 inches

Casting Number 317
Head: 2001+ LQ4 6.0 Litre Truck
Material: Aluminimum
Part Number:
12572035
Combustion Chamber Volume: 71.06cc
Compression Ratio: 10:1
Intake Port Volume: 210cc
Exhaust Port Volume: 75cc
Intake Valve Diameter: 2.00 inches
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.55 inches

* It takes about .005″ milling of the block deck to remove 1cc of volume. It takes .007″ milling to remove 1cc from an LS1 head

Simple Milling Math:

You have a stock 66cc chamber and you want to get down to 63cc

66-63 = 3. You have to remove 3cc’s

.007 x 3 = .021. So to get your 66cc chambers down to 63cc you’d have to mill ~.021.

You can also do the reverse, say you want to mille a head .030 to figure out how many CC’s that removes you take .030 / .007 = ~ 4.28. Milling a stock 5.7 head .030 puts your chamber at ~ 62.

* 241 cast heads were Die Cast which is a process that smooths up the ports a bit compared to the Sand Cast procedure that was done on the 806 and 853 heads. Once ported any “advantage” the 241 cast had is moot.

The 4.8/293, 5.3/325, 5.7/346, and 6.0/364 can be found in…

Cars
1997 – 2004 Chevrolet Corvette (5.7)
1998 – 2002 Chevrolet Camaro (5.7)
1998 – 2002 Pontiac Firebird (5.7)
2004 – 2005 Cadillac CTS-V (5.7)
2004 Pontiac GTO (5.7)

Trucks, Vans, SUVs
1999 – 2004 Chevrolet Silverado (4.8, 5.3, 6.0)
2000 – 2004 Chevrolet Tahoe (4.8, 5.3)
2000 – 2004 Chevrolet Suburban (5.3, 6.0)
2002 – 2004 Chevrolet Avalanche (5.3)
2003 – 2004 Chevrolet Express (5.3, 6.0)
2003 – 2004 Chevrolet SSR (5.3)
2003 – 2004 Chevrolet Trailblazer (5.3)
1999 – 2004 GMC Sierra (4.8, 5.3, 6.0)
2000 – 2004 GMC Yukon (4.8, 5.3, 6.0)
2003 – 2004 GMC Envoy (5.3)
2003 – 2004 GMC Savana (5.3, 6.0)
2001 – 2004 Cadillac Escalade (6.0)
2002 – 2004 Hummer H2 (6.0)
2003 – 2004 Isuzu Ascender (5.3)
2004 Buick Rainier (5.3)

Models LS1 Offered In
1997 – 2004 Chevrolet Corvette
1998 – 2002 Chevrolet Camaro (Z28 and SS)
1998 – 2002 Pontiac Firebird (Formula and Trans Am)
2004 Pontiac GTO

LS1 Specifications
1997 – 2000 Chevrolet Corvette
345hp @ 5600rpm
350tq @ 4400rpm
2001 Chevrolet Corvette
350hp @ 5200rpm
375tq @ 4400rpm (360tq @ 4000rpm w/Automatic)
2002 – 2004 Chevrolet Corvette
350hp @ 5200rpm
375tq @ 4000rpm (360tq @ 4000rpm w/Automatic)
1998 – 2000 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
305hp @ 5200rpm
335tq @ 4400rpm
1998 – 2000 Chevrolet Camaro SS*
320hp @ 5200rpm
345tq @ 4400rpm
2001 – 2002 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
310hp @ 5200rpm
340tq @ 4000rpm
2001 – 2002 Chevrolet Camaro SS*
325hp @ 5200rpm
350tq @ 4000rpm
1998 – 2000 Pontiac Firebird Formula/Trans Am*
305hp @ 5200rpm (320hp @ 5200rpm w/WS6)
335tq @ 4400rpm (345tq @ 4400rpm w/WS6)
2001 – 2002 Pontiac Firebird Formula/Trans Am*
310hp @ 5200rpm (325hp @ 5200rpm w/WS6)
340tq @ 4000rpm (350tq @ 4000rpm w/WS6)
2004 Pontiac GTO
350hp @ 5200rpm
365tq @ 4000rpm

Models LS6 Offered In
2001 – 2004 Chevrolet Corvette Z06
2004 – 2005 Cadillac CTS-V

LS6 Specifications
2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06
385hp @ 6000 rpm
385tq @ 4800 rpm
2002 – 2004 Chevrolet Corvette Z06
405hp @ 6000 rpm
400tq @ 4800 rpm
2004 – 2005 Cadillac CTS-V
400hp @ 6000rpm
395tq @ 4800rpm

* Does NOT include Firehawk or optional SS content from SLP.

The Gen III Small Block V8
RPO, Cubes, Bore x Stroke, and Liters

LR4, 293 cu/in, 3.779” x 3.268”, 4.8 Liters
LM4/LM7/L59, 325 cu/in, 3.779” x 3.622”, 5.3 Liters
LS1/LS6, 346 cu/in, 3.898” x 3.622”, 5.7 Liters
LQ4/LQ9, 364 cu/in, 4.000” x 3.622”, 6.0 Liters

Gen VII Big Block (thrown in for good measure)

L18, 496 cu/in, 4.250” x 4.37”, 8.1 Liters

The 5.3 is NOT a 327.
The 5.7 is NOT a 350.
The 8.1 is NOT a 502.

– Steve (DMNSPD)

I have compiled a list of all the locations, colors, and wires for shift lights for the 96-97 LT1 f-body, all LS1, all LS2, all LS6, and LS7 engines in the GTO, F-Body, and Corvette. Hopefully this will help those when wiring in the shift light. All of the connector #’s, pin #’s and wire colors are at the PCM. All of this info was copied from the engine controls schematics from GM’s service website.

IGN = Ignition voltage for your power wire
ESS = Engine Speed Sensor Signal for your shift light signal wire.

96-97 F-Body LT1
IGN – Connector #2, Pin 30 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #1, Pin 13 – White Wire

98 F-Body LS1
IGN – Connector #2 (Blue), Pin 19 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #2 (Blue), Pin 35 – White Wire

99-02 F-Body LS1
IGN – Connector #1 (Blue), Pin 19 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #2 (Red), Pin 10 – White Wire

97-98 Corvette LS1
IGN – Connector #2 (Blue), Pin 19 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #2 (Blue), Pin 35 – White Wire

99-02 Corvette LS1
IGN – Connector #1 (Blue), Pin 19 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #2 (Red), Pin 10 – White Wire

03-04 Corvette LS1/LS6
IGN – Connector #1 (Blue), Pin 19 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #2 (Green), Pin 10 – White Wire

05 Corvette LS2
IGN – Connector #1 (Blue), Pin 19 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #1 (Blue), Pin 48 – White Wire

06 Corvette LS7
IGN – Connector #1 (Black), Pin 47 – Pink Wire
ESS – Connector #1 (Black), Pin 48 – White Wire

04 GTO LS1
IGN – Connector #1 (Blue), Pin 19 – Orange Wire
ESS – Connector #2 (Green), Pin 10 – Brown w/Red Tracer

05-06 GTO LS2
IGN – Connector #1 (Blue), Pin 14 – Pink Wire