302 LS-1

[zz4camaro1980]

I was wondering if there is anyone out there producing a destroked LS-1, or just the crank for that matter. With gas the way it is this seems like it would be a perfect street engine, but I have never heard anyone talk about it. Thanks in advance.

[TraceZ]

I was wondering if there is anyone out there producing a destroked LS-1, or just the crank for that matter. With gas the way it is this seems like it would be a perfect street engine, but I have never heard anyone talk about it. Thanks in advance.

I've never heard of anyone modifying a V8 camaro to make it produce less power, for the intent of better fuel economy.

Why not run the 3800 v6 instead? It makes 200hp and the insurance rates are cheaper too. You could mod it up to 250hp with the money you'd spend de-tuning a LS1.

[Steel2686]

Tracy's point is a good one. The 3800's produce great power and have a nice little torque curve. Another route would be to get a '93 - '97 LT1 car. They have a little less power than the LS1, but I'm not real; sure how much better the fuel economy is. If that's the main concern, the V6 is the way to go.

[TraceZ]

Tracy's point is a good one. The 3800's produce great power and have a nice little torque curve. Another route would be to get a '93 - '97 LT1 car. They have a little less power than the LS1, but I'm not real; sure how much better the fuel economy is. If that's the main concern, the V6 is the way to go.

My LT1 with the six speed manual transmission gets 29 MPG highway "if" I baby it.

"IF" LOL

I dont think that LS1 cars are much different.

[Steel2686]

My LT1 with the six speed manual transmission gets 29 MPG highway "if" I baby it.

"IF" LOL

I dont think that LS1 cars are much different.

No. I get about 27 to 28 MPG with the M6 on the highway. That, of course, is shifting from 1st to 4th to 6th. When I go through the gearbox a bit more "spirited", the MPG's drop slightly.

[78formula78]

hummmm if you destroked it though... that could make some interesting RPMs if you built it right... might not make less power, it might just make it at some ungodly high Rpms

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

I was wondering if there is anyone out there producing a destroked LS-1, or just the crank for that matter. With gas the way it is this seems like it would be a perfect street engine, but I have never heard anyone talk about it. Thanks in advance.

The LS1 already gets 28+ mpg on the highway.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

I've never heard of anyone modifying a V8 camaro to make it produce less power, for the intent of better fuel economy.

Why not run the 3800 v6 instead? It makes 200hp and the insurance rates are cheaper too. You could mod it up to 250hp with the money you'd spend de-tuning a LS1.

The 3800 f-bodies don't get significantly better mileage though.

[Christopherrr]

did a test last week and checked out at 27.8 mpg with mixed driving on a light foot...heck, I get better gas mileage than my mom's accord V6.

[fastTa]

Yep, the M6 LS1 f-bodies got around 27-29 MPG, slightly more with just bolt-ons. And the M6 LS1 y-bodies(Corvettes) got 30 MPG or better.

[Nightrage]

did a test last week and checked out at 27.8 mpg with mixed driving on a light foot...heck, I get better gas mileage than my mom's accord V6.

This coming from a guy with 181K miles on his car And people say American cars are crap

With the money you would spend destroking an LS1, you could buy a cheap daily driver. That's the route I'm probably going. Honda Civic. 35+ MPG

[JL8Jeff]

The original 67-69 Chevy 302's were not good gas mileage motors. Short stroke with a big bore will rev like crazy and make good power but not good for mpg. You want a small bore long stroke combo for mpg. There's not a whole lot you can do to make a V8 get a lot better mpg. Just make sure the air flowing in and exhaust flowing out is as efficient as possible. Keep your foot off the gas pedal and if driving a 6 speed put it in neutral when coasting up to stop signs and traffic lights.

[TraceZ]

Also keep in mind that the 1969 302 was not built because it was some sort of perfect displacement for a performance motor or because it was good for fuel economy. The 302 ci motor was built solely because the SCCA regulations limited engine size to 305 ci. All Chevy did was put a 283 crank in a 327/350 block so they could meet the displacement requirement.

The 302 had a 4" bore and a 3" stroke.

[fastTa]

The original 67-69 Chevy 302's were not good gas mileage motors. Short stroke with a big bore will rev like crazy and make good power but not good for mpg. You want a small bore long stroke combo for mpg. There's not a whole lot you can do to make a V8 get a lot better mpg. Just make sure the air flowing in and exhaust flowing out is as efficient as possible. Keep your foot off the gas pedal and if driving a 6 speed put it in neutral when coasting up to stop signs and traffic lights.

Various bore and stroke combinations and relative dimensions have very little to do with fuel consumption characteristics. Even displacement, to a certain point, does not neccessarily dictate fuel consumption. It is all related to BSFC and obviously the given's like gearing, weight of the car, type of drivetrain, and engine build specs. It also greatly depends on where and in what manner the engine makes it's power in relation to RPM. It also, of course, will depend on the camshaft specs.....mainly LSA and intake duration.

Tracy is also right. The 302 cubic inch mark is not neccessarily a poor gas mileage performer, it was built because of SCCA regulations to compete in the Trans Am series.

[joe ws6]

Yea his right about scca i believe. The ls1 already gets better mpg then alot of cars on the high way. If you have and auto ?, you would see a bigger difference going to a 6-speed. And also intake and exhust modds.