11 replies to this topic

[BRIAN GLOVER]

I wrote this to Hot Rod Magazine. Any comments?

Dear David, (Freiburger)

I just read Will Handzel's story on the secrets of the Chevy Gen III engine in my August issue of Hot Rod Magazine.
The information therein seems to conflict with Dave McLellan's account of the origin of this engine in his book,"Corvette from the inside." It is particular interest to me as I have owned 10 Vettes including a 93 ZR1 and the current Z06 car.
Dave resigned in August '92 and Hanzel says the LS1 got the green light on May '92. Dave stayed on as a consultant. The LS1 was well underway by then and not under Stephans in late '91 as Handzel claims.
Dave starts off by saying that John Juriga under Anil Kulkarni led the project where as Hanzel says that Tom Stevens was the guy. If any body at GM needs credit, it would be Lloyd Reuss and Roy Midgley. The C5 was well under way as far as proof of concept is concerned before Stephans got involved and architecture and powertrain was still influence by Tony Rudd of Lotus.

There was a lot of infighting at GM at the time and McLelland left under a cloud so we will probably never learn the truth. Both accounts speak of Chief engineer Anil Kulkarni, the man who saved the Gen II engine with the LT1. There was conflict between him and Stephan's version of its origin. These guys just didn't get along.
Kulkarni was there from the beginning and Stephans was not. The Venture V8 was a crock.
The Venture V6 as the origin of the LS1 is nonsense. The long head bolts maybe. This engine was a disaster and shook to pieces.
The basic structure of the LS1 was inspired by the design of the LT5 which dates back to a Lotus F1 design and was adapted to the failed Lotus Etna super car. Even the full ladder frame below the crank center line on the LS1 is exactly the same as the LT5.
To the chagrin of Chevy engine engineers, the LT5 project was awarded to Lotus. . The bean counters proceeded to destroy the small block over the years 'till Kulkarni fixed it with the LT1 and a new solution was needed because of costs and performance targets..
The LS1 team was given the go ahead to come up with an all new engine, even if it had to be built with 4 cams. The design even drew inspiration from Ed Cole's 265 way back in 55.
"It is amazing how right he got that engine". McLelland.

Who are you going to believe? Damn glad I own one no matter it's origin.

Regards,

[Chubby_Deuce]

I haven't gotten around to reading it and you're not making me want to read it any more than I did.

[LS 1]

Great topic

[Chubby_Deuce]

I skimmed over it. What did they end up doing for the head bolts?

[McGuire]

I think you are reading things into Dave McLellan's book that aren't there.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

Well that's because he signed my book.

Originally posted by McGuire
I think you are reading things into Dave McLellan's book that aren't there.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

Hot Rod mentions the rift between Mssrs., Kulkarni and Stephans and all Corvette guys know the 'alleged' cloud that McLellan left under to be true. It seems some bean counter wanted the same bore centers as the Gen II engine which jeopardized the future of the LT5.
In Corvette quarterly, an official Chevrolet supplement for the C5 Vette claims That John Juriga was the project manager as Dave claims. I'll believe these guys before R&T,C&D, Motor Trend, etc..

Originally posted by McGuire
I think you are reading things into Dave McLellan's book that aren't there.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

The LS1 has deep skirts extending 40mm beneath the crankshaft cener line. The oil pan is a structural member. The block has 4 bolt cylinder head pattern instead of the historically common 5 bolt pattern. This allows the block deck to stay rounder longer because the deck is not being spread unequally. The long bolts are 50mm longer than before which after break in heat cycles, relaxes pressure on the head gasket by retaining the correct energy.
This is one hell of an engine still in its infancy as far as development is concerned. Look for a 500hp 2006 6 liter Z06.

Originally posted by Chubby_Deuce
I skimmed over it. What did they end up doing for the head bolts?

[Chubby_Deuce]

Okay.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER
I wrote this to Hot Rod Magazine. Any comments?....

....Who are you going to believe? Damn glad I own one no matter it's origin.

The origins of the Gen III architecture were at GM Powertrain, where Stephens was... and where Dave McLellan was not. GM Powertrain is where billion Dollar manufacturing infrastructure decisions are hashed out. Designs have to mesh with volume production methods and volume markets. I won't say the Corvette's needs are a total afterthought, but to a large extent they are. McLellan would have been pretty late to the party, after the GM Powertrain had determined all the parameters based on high volume production. Production blocks are machined on $100-200 million transfer lines, heads on another $100 million transfer line, then there's all the various other covers, caps, and pans that have to be tooled up for to be machined in great volumes. The Corvette has to use most of these major parts pretty much as is to keep the cost tolerable (or delve into economic messes like the LT5). Fortunately for the Vette crowd, weight reduction, big power, and durability are just as important nowadays to the much higher volume truck/SUV product lines. Anyway, my point is, Stephens and the original design engineers were there at the beginning and lived it, McLellan would have been reconstructing the personnel roster timeline secondhand from remote bits and pieces. The Gen III engine program and the C5 program were totally separate, by different divisions in different places. It's pretty petty to get your bowels in an uproar about design credit in a company like GM anyway... virtually any feature you see in the Gen III or any other engine was used somewhere by someone before; if not in someone else's production engine, at least in a racing engine, or a past prototype or proposal engine that you'll never see or hear of. Despite the PR that tries to paint program heads such as the Zoras, Deloreans, Shelbys, Hills, and McLellans, etc. of the world as geniuses.

If direct quotes from the original design team state that the Gen III V8 was derived from the Venture V6, and there are pictures in front of your face proving it, I'd think you have to believe it. It certainly does not have anything at all in common with LT5, despite your claim. Not one square inch of the block casting looks similar... the architecture is totally different... the LT5 upper block stops at crankshaft centerline and uses a one-piece lower block (plus removable pan) like the Porsche 928. The Gen III block is a deep skirt design with five individual main caps (each with four vertical bolts and two sidebolts through the block skirts). The LT5 is an open deck block with free-standing, separate aluminum wet sleeve cylinders (Nikasil plated). The Gen III block is a closed deck casting with traditional water jackets cored in the aluminum, and iron dry sleeves in the bores. Two engines could hardly be less similar. The Gen III engine is architecturally closer (very close) to the Ford Modular V8 (except for the cam bore in block of course). The Gen III and the LT5 do share bore spacing and bellhousing bolt pattern, but those come from Ed Cole, not Tony Rudd.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

Thanks for the response Engineguy. That's what I was looking for.

"The origins of the Gen III architecture were at GM Powertrain, where Stephens was... and where Dave McLellan was not. "

McLellan claims that it was John Jariga and not Stephans that first led the project. Stephans was given the job and the chief engineer, Kulkarni, who had strong differing ideas about the direction of the project, could not see eye to eye with Stephans and moved along to 4 cylinders. check out the Ecotech engine.
Ed Koerner, who was initially under Jariga, a proper gear head and a long time friend of Lingnfelter and also a NHRA record holder took Kulkarni's place. He was greatly inspired by the LT5 project and wanted the LS1 to have race technology also. To say that the roots of the LS1 are not from the LT5 project conflicts with my information. Ironically, Jariga, the Vette guy, was responsible for the LS6 also. I can get 30mpg with this engine.
Anyway, who cares, that was not my point. Your response is what I was after. Very interesting. Wonder what Hot Rod magazine will say?


Lloyd Reuss and Roy Midgley were the guys that decided on the LT5s bore centers being the same as the Gen II engine and here I believe started the two camps of thought. They are actually tighter because the engine had to be designed for FWD applications.
Reuss had the clout which became the demise of the LT5. He was president of GM and gave the go ahead for the C4 and ZR1 Vettes and eventually the LS1. GM was in need of a new engine and the Lotus engine engineers got the job. The LT5 was supposed to do the job of the LS1 even if it meant a single cam high production version. The two engines were compared side by side and they went with the LS1.
No one new at the time that the cast iron block 6 liter truck engine would be derived from the LS1 design. No one even believed they could get 350 hp let alone 400, 500 and 600hp. Their target was 300HP. The GM guys were pretty pissed that they weren't given the job of the LT5 but GM had just purchased Lotus who happened to have 70 engineers. After all, they had spent a lot of money developing the Lotus engine and they thought it would be the cheapest way of meeting government requirements in the future as he Gen II clearly, could not..
Only McLellan new that the LT5 would be a failure.
They did keep a close watch on the LT5s development and they had the benefit of hindsight with their LS1 engine design.

" I won't say the Corvette's needs are a total afterthought, but to a large extent they are. McLellan would have been pretty late to the party, after the GM Powertrain had determined all the parameters based on high volume production. "

The Vette guys do have to scrounge around for parts because of their low budget but a lot was learned from the LT5 project especially the use of computers to optimize the design that Lotus was using. Even the Vette's 'transaxle' came from tooling from the truck's Silverado divisions transfer box. Some of the Corvettes development was offset buy the $3billion Silverado project.
The after market, sanctioned by GM, has led to the development of this engine. This engine was given to various tuners before it even went into production. Guldstrand was GMs boy for the LT5s development, but he got stiffed. Thus ended his $million GS project.

"The Gen III engine program and the C5 program were totally separate, by different divisions in different places. It's pretty petty to get your bowels in an uproar about design credit in a company like GM anyway... "

Yeah, yeah, but that is what enthusiasts do and as I said a close watch was kept on the LT5 project. The LS1 project came about because of the failure of the LT5.

"Virtually any feature you see in the Gen III or any other engine was used somewhere by someone before; if not in someone else's production engine, at least in a racing engine, or a past prototype or proposal engine that you'll never see or hear of. "

As with all engines.

"Despite the PR that tries to paint program heads such as the Zoras, Deloreans, Shelbys, Hills, and McLellans, etc. of the world as geniuses."

These fine gentlemen should not be brushed off like that, they have made some pretty formidable contributions to the automobile industry and in some cases, racing. Delorean filed more patents than any other GM engineer, all engine related. Zora was an engine man also, dating back to OHV heads for model Ts to fuel injection in Vettes. Hill turned Cadillac around and is responsible for the XLR on a Vette chassis.. McLelland gave us the C4 and ZR1 and Shelby.........
Hill was not Dave McClellan's choice to run Corvette. I think he is doing a fine job and better than Heinricy could do who happened to be Dave's first choice. So there you go.


"If direct quotes from the original design team state that the Gen III V8 was derived from the Venture V6, and there are pictures in front of your face proving it, I'd think you have to believe it. "

They only show pictures of the top of the engine. As you said, the design is taken from many sources and this V6 was a disaster.. I need more evidence,
McGuire???

although I respect Hot Rod Magazine. Dave's account is also interesting.
"It certainly does not have anything at all in common with LT5, despite your claim. "

It has 8 cylinders and the oil pan is structural.

Thanks for clearing things up. I'll go to my Vette club tonight and show off with my new found information.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Engineguy
[B]

[McGuire]

Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER
McGuire???

If you are asking me, I don't see the accounts of Handzel and McLellan as contradictory. While McLellan devotes many pages to the LT5 since it was a Corvette deal, the LS1 gets only a few paragraphs as that was a GM powertrain deal, mostly out of McLellan's view. Handzel's account is more in-depth.

As I understand the flow chart on the administrative side, Juriga would have been under Stephens at that time. Stephens would be the guy to call the shot, while neither would have had much to do with the actual work. (Stephens is now a GM VP while Juriga has moved on to Hyundai.) Also, in sorting out all the titles and job descriptions you have to distinguish between Gen III and LS1, the latter being a subset of the former. (Without Gen III there is no LS1, LS6, etc.) Meanwhile there are dozens of key people involved on the technical side, rotating in and out as they are needed while they work on multiple projects.

So the correct (politically and factually) answer as to who designed and developed any GM engine is: General Motors. But when the deal is all done and the company needs to put human faces on it for the press, favored members of the current ruling junta will be rolled out to take all the credit. If the program is successful, that is. If not, the line of people stepping up will be considerably shorter. Who created the Vega 2300? Who did the last inhouse IRL engine? You may never know.

The Gen III borrows nothing from the LT5 that I can see. Meanwhile the Gen III's similarity to the Venture V6 is striking. In fact its original name was Venture V8, then became Gen III.