pdg67 - I totally hear and understand your side. There you listed 5 major upgrades to major systems they could've made to the Gen I. This could've made a motor nearly as good or as good as the Gen III. However with the time GM would have invested into doing these things to a now 40+ year old engine design, wouldn't it just make sense to totally revamp everything with modern technology? They have revised and revised over those many years to stay up to date with the technology of the year, but you can only revise a design that old (no matter how good it is!) so many times before it warrants a new base design. Take computers for instance, they have gone through the same things except at a much more rapid pace. My brother for instance likes to build computers from scratch, with mix and match parts. 5 years ago he would or could've started with a computer from 10 years ago and built something with current technology. Today I doubt he could update a 10 year old computer enough to compare to modern technology. Just an example.
Like I said, there is NOTHING wrong with a Gen I. Nothing at all. I still have the original 350 in my chevelle, untouched, factory original. It will probably be in there a few more years with a rebuild, since that's what I can afford. I might even throw a big block in if I can find one that I can afford. I also have a 5.3 Gen III in my garage that I dream of putting in the car, but right now the parts are significantly more expensive for them and I can't afford to do it. Anyway I'm not saying that the Gen I's are not a good engine, I'm not saying that they are not tough. In general I'm not saying anything bad at all about Gen I's, how can you? How can you argue about an engine that has been tried and true for 50 years? You just can't. All I am saying is that while I totally agree that the Gen I's have a huge advantage in the fact that they can be built significantly cheaper, I disagree in the fact that the Gen III's are a superior design/engine. With the millions, maybe even billions, of dollars that GM is spending on research, design, and development for these engines, do you think they would gamble that much on an engine that they think is obsolete? I respect your opinion, and your preference, as I hope you do mine. I just wanted to share my opinion as you have yours.
66 283 - Basically everything for the Gen III is more expensive, period. There are certain points that a Gen III is cheaper to build, but what it comes down to is that the initial cost is greater, but the initial horsepower gains are greater and therefore cheaper. Example like was stated before, a stock 6.0 with a cam change and some small mods is capable of 480 horsepower. Show me a stock 350-400 that can put out 480 very streetable horsepower with just a cam. Now figure in that you can get a stock 350 or 400 for alot less $$$ than the Gen III, that leaves you more $$$ to throw some performance parts at it to get that 480 hp. Bottom line is, it's not cheaper to build the Gen III, but it is a more efficient and more modern engine. The stock bottom end of a Gen III is more durable and capable of more hp than a Gen I. If I remember right, with nothing more than upgrading rod bolts to ARP's a stock bottom end of a LS engine is more than capable of handling 500-550hp, depending on how much you abuse it. It is probably easier to get the 1500+hp out of the LS though, maybe not cheaper though. It also has a higher max HP than the Gen I platform.
If you fellas would like to read up on the LS series, what it's capable of, and the general ins and outs of the Gen III's, head over to
www.ls1tech.com .
It's a great site and has tons of useful information on these engines. Thank you guys for not turning this into an arguement, more an exchange of opinions and thoughts. It's not too many places that can pull that off!