[doc7000]

I have been wondering if GM should have stuck with one naming scheme, I think it is bad branding to have multiple engines with the same or similar designations.

For example there have been three LT1 engines one being a first generation engine, the second being a second generation engine, and the third being a fifth generation engine. Is there a rule against using a more then three digit naming scheme for engines at GM?, what if the fifth generation SBC kept the LS naming scheme and just used bigger numbers like LS11 instead of LT1. I mean there are two LS6 engines one being a big block 454 (7.4L) engine and the other is a small block 346 (5.7L) engine.

Maybe they could use a naming scheme that includes the displacement of the engine in it. So the LT1 would then be the LS62 and the LT4 would be the LS62SC (supercharged), maybe call the LT5 the LS62SCHO.

[DFW1LE]

I've wondered about that as well.

[Marty McFlew]

Originally Posted by doc7000

I have been wondering if GM should have stuck with one naming scheme, I think it is bad branding to have multiple engines with the same or similar designations.

For example there have been three LT1 engines one being a first generation engine, the second being a second generation engine, and the third being a fifth generation engine. Is there a rule against using a more then three digit naming scheme for engines at GM?, what if the fifth generation SBC kept the LS naming scheme and just used bigger numbers like LS11 instead of LT1. I mean there are two LS6 engines one being a big block 454 (7.4L) engine and the other is a small block 346 (5.7L) engine.

Maybe they could use a naming scheme that includes the displacement of the engine in it. So the LT1 would then be the LS62 and the LT4 would be the LS62SC (supercharged), maybe call the LT5 the LS62SCHO.

Similar to my post I posted last week. The current labeling is confusing if you have multiple LT1 engine generations but all completely different designs.

[glenB]

The first small block is actually LT-1 and the original big block was LS-6 as well as an oval port q jet 427 LS-1 but they're all different generations

But here's your answer http://www.lsxmag.com/news/the-insid...-block-an-lt1/

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by doc7000

I have been wondering if GM should have stuck with one naming scheme, I think it is bad branding to have multiple engines with the same or similar designations.

For example there have been three LT1 engines one being a first generation engine, the second being a second generation engine, and the third being a fifth generation engine. Is there a rule against using a more then three digit naming scheme for engines at GM?, what if the fifth generation SBC kept the LS naming scheme and just used bigger numbers like LS11 instead of LT1. I mean there are two LS6 engines one being a big block 454 (7.4L) engine and the other is a small block 346 (5.7L) engine.

Maybe they could use a naming scheme that includes the displacement of the engine in it. So the LT1 would then be the LS62 and the LT4 would be the LS62SC (supercharged), maybe call the LT5 the LS62SCHO.

Alright, but then wouldn't the LS3 and L99 have both also been the LS62? What if in 2020 or so there is a new 6.2L engine to be used in base Corvettes & the Camaro SS. Still a gen V engine, but updated and revised with what they have learned over the past few years. Under your scheme, it should also be named 'LT62' like you suggest for the LT1.

The naming structure stops being confusing if you stop trying to make sense of it. You're better off just accepting that 'letter(s) + number(s) = engine'. For all the rules that someone would have to memorize to codify the entire GM engine lineup, you'd be just as well off to simply remember the individual engines on a case-by-case basis.

[Mr. Meh]

You'd also need to account for all the Vortec variants that were effectively just Truck versions of LS motors.

Then there's the L99 that was in the Gen 5 Camaro Auto that was a VVT version of an LS3 with lower figures.

LSA seems like they went hexadecimal, since A would be 10 making it an LS10 after the LS9... Though, I don't know of an LS8, so they could have done that as well I suppose.

They have Generations for a reason.. It's not unlike having a Gen5 and Gen6 Camaro 1SS or 2SS.. Not a Camaro 51SS and a Camaro 62SS