I read and hear all the talk about LS1's. How some readers of CC dont thing it is affordable performance or you get the import guys saying its a techincal dinosaur. Well now that I have some experience with an LS1 and have done some learning here is my thoughts and responses to all this rambling.

First I ll start about the techincal part of this. Many of the "sheep" out there hang on every word that new car journalist print. I can only guest that DR511SCJ is either one of these journalist or one of the many sheep. These mags often want to rag on domestic cars for not having "up to date' engines, in another words multi vavles & cams.

Well my responses to that are these. First off GM's 3.8 pushrod V6 has been regarded as one of the 10 best engines of the CENTURY! A pushrod engine! Must make those new car mag guys sick. This engine also makes great power with a SC on it and can make awesome power with a turbo. All with pushrods.

My second response about being backwards because of a lack of a certain type of engine. Well an engine is only one of many aspects of a vehicle. LS1 cars have eletronically controlled transmissions, abs, traction control, many sensors that help to run everything smooth and OBD2 computers. I guess that isnt using modern techinology? One part of the car does not make it backwards.

As for milage and RPM's. Its not uncommon for an LS1 to be able to get 23-26 MPG on the highway. This from a car with a V8, a/c and p/s. These multi cammer engines make their power at RPM's like highway speeds and get good MPG. If that is what your looking for and your not looking for killer off the line performance, get a 6 speed F-Body. Do a full exhaust block back, good air intake and throw some 273's in it. You should damn near knock down 30 MPG highway and will still get good pickup at highway speeds if you throw down to third. This with an honest 300 HP and over 300 lb ft of torque. Not sweating to break 250 lb ft like so many of those "multi" engines do. But I guess that is backwards hu?

As for the affordable part. Some people like myself can not afford to buy a car that is just for fun. I need something I can drive. I had two FWD cars. One for me, one for the other half. We both need cars to get to work. Hers got hit and totalled. I needed something I could make payments on because I didnt have a large amount of money to go out and buy a good older car. I gave her my car and bought an LS1 Z-28.

Lets see. I got a car that has P/S, P/L, P/SEAT, P/M tilt, cruise, am/fm cd with 12 disc changer, keyless entry, auto lights, abs 4 wheel disc brakes, limited slip diff, reclining bucket seats, traction control, a/c, rear defogger, overdrive trans and steering wheel radio controls. I put less then $150 into the car after purchase and ran a 13.1@106. A time that would beat many a muscle car in stock form. I cruise very comfortable right now. With the GAP insurance I put on the car I apy a little over $300.00 a month for this car. I can spend about another two grand on the car as I get the money and put a torque converter & 100 shot of nitrous on the car. From what I have learned about this cars that would most definately put into very low 12's and very likly having me run high 11's. Now answer me this. How in the hell is not affordable performance?  

To get a desirable muscle car, restore it to the kind of condition a late model car is in and then mod it to run those kind of times would cost you well over 20 grand. With purchase price of my car and said mods I am still under 20 grand. Plus I have a car I can actual drive while I am doing this and it does have good performance to boot. Even adding the financing I am still spending less then going the older muscle car way.

Dont think I dont like old muscle cars either just because of this post. I love them. My dream car is an old muscle car. I just dont think because something is EFI it isnt affordable performance because I just dont see that as being true as shown by my LS1 car.

Good points!  It sounds like you are having big fun with your LS Camaro!

All I can guess is that the demise of the LS-powered F-Bodies and the abysmal sales of the LS-powered Aussie GTO and Chevy SSR (not to mention the outstanding sales of the cammer-equipped '05 Mustang or the absolutely pitiful residual values for the few LS1 F-Bodies out there) are simply byproducts of journalistic mind control over the car buying "sheep."

The problem GM is facing is two things. One they let prices become to high compared to some of the competition in the F-Body's market. The GTO has been dealing with what many have considered bland or boring styling. Lets face it. The Mustang has alot more help to start then the GTO ever got for its start. Ford hyped the hell out of this car. They handed dozens of them out to the aftermarket before they were even out to the public. For whatever reason, it is one of the few American made cars that the new car journalists have taken to. This cammer equipped Mustang though can not beat a pushrod equipped LS1 F-Body that production stopped on three years ago. Being that the market these cars are for is performance, now how is ahead of the game?

Anyone with half a brain and being honest about it knows full damn well that the mags are bias against domestic vehicles. No matter how good they make them they will never quite stack up against the imports as far as any of them are concerned. I know this is not a car that will be talked about here but lets take the Pontiac Vibe. C&D did a review on. Well seeing as the car was developed with Toyota they had to make damn good and sure they drove that point home. In fact they made damn sure they "shoved" that down your throat. I believe "Toyota" was mentioned as many times as Pontiac was in a review for a Pontiac car. And of course anything quality was Toyota's doing. It really is sicken how they try to stomp all over American products.

And yes I am having alot fun with my "backwards, cammer out performing" pushrod LS1. Its fun beating cars that are "better" then mine and cost a whole lot more then what I paid. New they were'nt the greatest deal, however as used vehicles they are a hell of a deal. 11 g's less then that cammer Mustang and outruns it to boot. By the way the more desirable low volume versions of the F-Body are still holding very good value. Read a sale paper once and awhile.

you really need to get your facts straight about what happened with the F-cars.  read into it.

I like the new mustangs, and I like my "LS powered aussie GTO" 

just because they ripped on you in the July Car Craft doesn't mean you have to go into every thread and say rediculous things.

let it go, man.

I'm fully aware of what happened with the F-bodies. 

As much smokescreen as GM apologists want to spread about deals with the CAW not to produce them in other plants, the need to shift development dollars or build more SUVs, the simple facts are that the F-bodies were poorly designed and built products which did not sell in sufficient numbers to be profitable.  The LS1 engine wasn't enough to save them.  If the cars had sold profitably, they would still be making them.  It doesn't require a Harvard MBA to figure that out. It's that simple.

The Aussie GTO may be a satisfying car to drive, but it is also failing in the marketplace for several reasons.  Given GM's cancellation of the Zeta platform, long-term prospects for GTO are limited.

The LSx is most certainly the most "modern" two-valve, pushrod engine GM could afford to sell.  But to somehow suggest that the LSx makes GM right and everyone else, save DaimlerChrysler,  wrong about the market's obvious shift to multivalve, overhead cam engines is shortsighted.

I don't begrudge anyone who wants an LSx. All I want is for the leaders of this hobby to give EQUAL TIME to the other emerging alternatives.  For some ignorant kid who occasionally picks up a CC to think that the LSx is the ONLY modern American performance V8--and the only alternative to the HONDA/TOYOTA/FWD onslaught is simply unreasonable and unfair.

Furthermore, to ignore the vast numerical advantage of late model Mustangs, as compared to the F-bodies, by skewing magazine coverage in favor of GM is obviously willfully neglecting to serve a huge number of potential readers by relying on shopworn assumptions about what is a "performance" engine.