text:
Herut

Herut (חֵרוּת) was the major conservative nationalist political party in Israel from 1948 until its formal merger into Likud in 1988. It was an adherent of Revisionist Zionism.

Foundation and platform
Herut was founded by Menachem Begin on 15 June 1948 as a successor to the Revisionist Irgun, a militant group in Mandate Palestine. The new party was a challenge to the Hatzohar party established by Ze'ev Jabotinsky. Herut also established an eponymous newspaper, with many of its founding journalists defecting from Hatzohar's HaMashkif.

Objection to withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and negotiations with Arab states formed the party's main platform in the first Knesset election. The party vigorously opposed the ceasefire agreements with the Arab states until the annexation of Gaza Strip and the West Bank, both before and after the election. Herut differentiated itself by refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the Kingdom of Jordan after the armistice, and frequently used the slogan "Two banks of the Jordan River" in claiming Israel's right to the whole of Eretz Israel/Palestine. According to Joseph Heller, Herut was a one-issue party intent on expanding Israel's borders.

Herut's socio-economic platform represented a clear shift to the right, with support for private initiative, but also for legislation preventing the trusts from exploiting workers. Begin was at first careful not to appear anti-socialist, stressing his opposition to monopolies and trusts, and also demanding that "all public utility works and basic industries must be nationalized". Herut was from the outset inclined to sympathise with the underdog, and, according to Hannah Torok Yablonka, "tended to serve as a lodestone for society's misfits".

1949 elections
Herut's political expectations were high as the first election approached in 1949. It took credit for driving the British government out and as a young movement, reflecting the esprit of the nation, it perceived its image as being more attractive than the old establishment. They hoped to win 25 seats, which would place them second and make them leader of the opposition, with potential for a future gain of government power. This analysis was shared by other parties. At the elections, Herut only won 14 seats with 11.5 percent of the votes, making it the fourth-largest party in the Knesset; Hatzohar, on the other hand, failed to cross the electoral threshold of 1 percent and disbanded shortly thereafter.

Opposition to Herut
Though practical differences between the two parties were less dramatic than the rhetoric suggested, both the Labor Zionist establishment and the opposition Herut emphasised those differences to mobilise their voters.

The hostility between Begin and Israel's first Prime Minister, the Mapai leader David Ben-Gurion, which had begun over the Altalena Affair, was evident in the Knesset. Ben-Gurion coined the phrase "without Herut and Maki" (Maki was the Communist Party of Israel), a reference to his position that he would include any party in his coalition, except those two. In fact, Herut was approached at least three times (1952, 1955, and 1961) by Mapai for government negotiations; Begin turned down each offer, suspecting that they were designed to divide his party. The ostracism also expressed itself in the Prime Minister's refusal to refer to Begin by name from the Knesset Podium, using instead the phrase "the person who sits next to M. K. Badar", and boycotting his Knesset speeches.

Ben-Gurion's policy of ostracising Revisionism was performed systematically, as seen in the legal exclusion of fallen Irgun and Lehi fighters from public commemoration and from benefits to their families. Herut members were excluded from the highest bureaucratic and military positions.

Herut also met fierce resistance from the broader Jewish diaspora. When Begin visited New York City in December 1948 over twenty prominent Jewish intellectuals, including Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, Zellig Harris, and Sidney Hook signed an open letter to The New York Times. The letter condemned Herut and Begin for their part in the Deir Yassin massacre and likened the party "in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties" and accused it of preaching "an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority".

Decline
In the municipal elections of 1950, Herut lost voters to the centrist General Zionists, who also attracted disillusioned voters from Mapai and established themselves as a tough opposition rival to Herut. At the second national convention, Begin was challenged by more radical elements of his party. They wanted a more dynamic leadership, and thought he had adapted himself to the system. At the convention, Begin's proposal to send children abroad for security reasons, although there was a precedent for such a measure, sounded defeatist, and it was unanimously rejected. It was considered to have hurt the party's image. In March 1951, Herut lost two of its Knesset seats, with the defection of Ari Jabotinsky and Hillel Kook from the party to sit as independent MKs. Referring to previous written commitments, the party sought to revoke its Knesset membership, but the issue was still not settled by the next election three months later.

Critics of the party leadership pointed out that the party had changed and lost its status as a radical avant-garde party. Uncompromising candidates had been removed from the party list for the upcoming elections, economic questions loomed large in the propaganda, and Mapai had co-opted some of the Herut agenda, not least by declaring Jerusalem as Israel's capital. These critics and outside commentators thought that Herut seemed irrelevant.

In the 1951 elections, Herut won eight seats, six less than previously. Begin resigned as leader, a move he had considered before the election because of the internal criticism. He was replaced by Aryeh Ben-Eliezer, whose leadership was nipped in the bud when he suffered a heart attack in late 1951. Ya'akov Rubin became party secretary general. Despite sending the party his resignation letter in August 1952 and going abroad to Europe, the party's national council voted instead to make Ben-Eliezer deputy chairman and grant Begin a six month leave of absence. Begin did not return to public life until January 1952, prompted to do so by the growing debate around the Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany.

As a young party without institutions paralleling those of Mapai, who were predominant in most areas of social life, Herut was at a serious disadvantage. Its leaders were politically inexperienced and clung to the principle of not – as representatives of the entire nation – accepting financial support from any interest groups. They were prevented from building a strong and competent party structure because of this.

Begin's return
The Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany of 1952 brought Begin back into politics. It gave the party new momentum, and it proved an effective weapon against the General Zionists. The Reparations Agreement awoke strong sentiments in the nation, and Begin encouraged civil disobedience during the debate on the affair. The largest demonstrations gathered 15,000 people, and Herut reached far beyond its own constituency. The party let the issue fade from the agenda only after having wrested a maximum of political capital from it.

The third national convention included a fierce debate about democracy and legitimate political actions. There was strong sentiment in favour of using the barricades, but Begin vigorously resisted it. The government of the nation, he claimed, could only be established via the ballot box. The convention gave Begin important legitimacy by sending a message to the public that the party was law-abiding and democratic. At the same time, it secured the support of the hard-liners who would not compromise on its principles.

Economic and fiscal policy were given greater emphasis, and the party attacked the Histadrut for its dual role as employer and trade union. It proposed to outlaw such concentration of power and also abolish party control of agricultural settlements. Herut reasoned that workers were empowered by private enterprise. A 25 per cent tax cut was also envisioned.

In the 1955 election, the party nearly doubled its seats to 15, and became the second-largest party in the Knesset, behind Mapai. Apart from an improved campaign, the accomplishment was attributed to the activist party platform in a situation of deteriorating security, to more support from recent immigrants and other disgruntled elements, and to disillusionment with the economic situation. The Kastner trial also played into Herut's hands, when, together with Maki, they helped bring down Moshe Sharett's government in 1954 through a motion of no-confidence over the government's position in the trial.

Herut added another seat in the 1959 elections, feeding on feelings of resentment against the dominant left that existed mainly among new Sephardi and Mizrahi immigrants. The party failed, however, to maintain the momentum of the previous election, and to make substantial gains, as had been hoped. As the young nation grew stronger, the public did not feel the same existential dread, lessening the impact of Herut's activist message, especially after the Suez crisis, in which Ben-Gurion's performance was perceived favourably. The Wadi Salib riots a few months before the election caused the government to play the role of maintainer of law and order, which resonated well among the middle class. Mapai exploited the situation successfully by depicting Begin as dangerous.

Gahal alliance
Herut helped bring down the government again in 1961 when they and the General Zionists tabled a motion of no confidence over the government's investigation into the earlier Lavon Affair; in the resulting 1961 election, the party maintained its 17 seats. Toward the end of the Fifth Knesset in 1965, and in preparation for the upcoming election, Herut joined with the Liberal Party (itself a recent merger of the General Zionists and the Progressive Party) to form Gahal (a Hebrew acronym for the Herut-Liberal Bloc (Hebrew: גוש חרות-ליברלים, Gush Herut-Liberalim)), although each party remained independent within the alliance. The merger helped moderate Herut's political isolation and created a right-wing opposition bloc with a broader base and more realistic chance to lead the government. The full alliance did not survive, however, because seven members of the Liberal Party, mostly former Progressives, soon defected from the Liberals and formed the Independent Liberals; they disagreed with the merger, identifying Herut and Begin as too right-wing. Mapai also experienced defections at the time, and the Knesset session closed with Gahal holding 27 seats, second only to Mapai's remaining 34.

Over time, the public perception of both Herut and its leader had changed, despite the ostracism imposed by Prime Minister Ben-Gurion. Begin had remained the main opposition figure, against the dominant politicians of the left, particularly in debates regarding such heated issues as the Lavon investigation and Israel's relationships to Germany. This prominence evaded much of the ostracism's impact, and Ben-Gurion's hostility became ever more savage. He eventually started to liken Begin to Hitler – an attitude that backfired, making Begin to stand out as a victim. The political climate took a favourable turn for Revisionism and Herut in mid-1963, when Levi Eshkol replaced Ben-Gurion as Prime and Defense Minister. A government resolution in March 1964 calling for the reinterment of Zeev Jabotinsky's remains in Israel attests to this. Fallen Irgun and Lehi militants also began to be commemorated more equally, with their reputations being rehabilitated.

In the 1965 elections, Gahal won only 26 seats, well below that of the left's new Alignment, which won 45. In Herut's search for a scapegoat, its leadership was questioned by many; they considered that Begin, despite his achievements, brought an indelible stigma from his militant days before and around independence, scaring off voters. Internal opposition arose, and Herut's eighth convention in June 1966 became turbulent. The opposition group sensed that Begin's leadership position was too strong to challenge; so, they concentrated on winning control over the party organization. They won overwhelming victories in all votes for the composition of party institutions. Begin responded by putting his own political future at stake. He threatened to leave the party chair, and maybe also his seat in the Knesset. Begin's move mobilized delegates in emphatic support for him, but the party convention still ended with great internal tension, and without a party chairman; the chair would be vacant for eight months. Party opposition to Begin' leadership came to a showdown a month after the convention, when Haim Amsterdam, an assistant to one of the opposition leaders, Shmuel Tamir, published a devastating attack on Begin in Ha'aretz; this led to the suspension of Tamir's party membership. The leaders of the opposition then established a new party in the Knesset, the Free Center, with the loss of three seats for Herut. After this revolt, Begin returned to party leadership.

Government participation
Gahal joined the government on the first day of the Six-Day War, with both Begin and the Liberal's Yosef Sapir becoming a Minister without Portfolio; Ben-Gurion's Rafi also joined, with Moshe Dayan becoming Defense Minister. The national unity government was Begin's own brainchild. This had a significant positive effect on his image. Critics agree that it was a major turning point in Herut's road to power, since it granted it the legitimacy it had been denied up until then. The national unity government was more than an emergency solution in a time of existential danger; it reflected a relaxation of ideological tension, which enabled the government to outlive the emergency. Moreover, Begin and Ben-Gurion were reconciled. Ben-Gurion needed him in his bitter rivalry with Eshkol and Begin surprised his adversary by proposing to Eshkol that he should step aside in favor of Ben-Gurion as the leader of an emergency government. The proposition was turned down, but Ben-Gurion, who recently had compared Begin to Hitler, now praised his responsibility and patriotism.

The outcome of the war strengthened Herut. The principle of the indivisibility of the land had seemed like an archaic principle with little practical significance, but now, it emerged from the fringe of consciousness to the core of national thought. Begin saw it as his first mission in the government to secure the fruits of the victory by preventing territorial withdrawal and promoting settlement.

Despite the breakaway of the Free Center, Gahal retained its representation in the Knesset in the 1969 elections, and several of their candidates were elected as mayors. Herut was included in the new government of Golda Meir with six ministers (out of 24). The recruitment of Major-General Ezer Weizman, the first general to join Herut and a nephew of Israel's first President, was a considerable public relations achievement. The Government participation did not last long, since Gahal left in early 1970 over the acceptance of the Rogers Plan, which included approval of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, a move that was largely dictated by Begin.

Merging into Likud
In September 1973, Gahal merged with the Free Centre, the National List and the non-parliamentary Movement for Greater Israel to create Likud, again with all parties retaining their independence within the union. Within Likud, Herut continued to be the dominant party. In the 1973 elections, Likud capitalized on the government's neglect in the Yom Kippur War, and gained seven seats, totalling 39.

In the following years, Likud sharply criticized the government's accords with Egypt and Syria. Stormy demonstrations were organized in conjunction with Gush Emunim, signifying an important political alliance. In the 1977 elections, Likud emerged victorious, with 43 seats, the first time the right had won an election. Begin became Prime Minister, retaining his post in the 1981 elections. In 1983, he stood down, and Yitzhak Shamir took over as Herut (and, therefore, Likud) party leader and Prime Minister.

Herut was finally disbanded in 1988, when Likud dissolved its internal factions to become a unitary party.

Herut – The National Movement
In 1998, Benny Begin (son of Menachem Begin), Michael Kleiner, and David Re'em broke away from Likud in protest at Benjamin Netanyahu's agreement to the Wye River Memorandum and the Hebron Agreement, which had ceded land to the Palestinians. They named their new party Herut – The National Movement, and tried to claim it as the successor to the original party. However, in reality, it was a new and separate party. Today, the party ideology continues through the Magshimey Herut movement.

title: Herut


text:
Rank (album)

Rank is the only official live album by English band The Smiths. It was released a year after the band’s breakup, in September 1988, through Rough Trade Records, and reached No. 2 in the British charts. In the United States, the album was released on Sire Records and made No. 77.

Background
Rank was released as a contractual obligation. It was recorded almost two years earlier on 23 October 1986 at National Ballroom in Kilburn, London, and is a fourteen-track distillation (of 21 songs) by singer Morrissey from the complete concert recording that had earlier been transmitted by BBC Radio 1. The album rode high on the Smiths nostalgia and the success of Morrissey's debut solo album, Viva Hate, earlier the same year.

The songs omitted from the recording of the Kilburn show are: "I Want the One I Can't Have", "There Is a Light That Never Goes Out", "Frankly, Mr. Shankly", "Never Had No One Ever", "Meat Is Murder", and "How Soon Is Now?" Also, some edits can be readily heard in the concert itself, such as at the end of "I Know It's Over" when the crowd starts cheering. In late 2008 video footage appeared from the show on YouTube.

According to The Smiths biographers Johnny Rogan and David Bret, Morrissey originally titled the album The Smiths in Heat. Rough Trade objected and Morrissey proposed Rank, "as in 'J. Arthur'" (J. Arthur Rank is Cockney rhyming slang for "wank").

Packaging
The album cover for Rank, designed by Morrissey, is a photo of actress Alexandra Bastedo. The image is from photographer John D. Green's 1967 book Birds of Britain. The gatefold album's interior features a photo of several Smiths fans ripping apart Morrissey's shirt. That picture was taken by Ian Tilton at the 1986 Factory Records "Festival of the Tenth Summer" concert at G-Mex Centre in Manchester, England.

Track listing
All tracks written by Johnny Marr and Morrissey except "His Latest Flame" (Doc Pomus, Mort Shuman), "The Draize Train" (Marr) and the very beginning of "The Queen Is Dead" where an audio recording of Sergei Prokofiev's classical piece "Montagues and Capulets" was played to introduce the band.

The band

 * Morrissey – vocals
 * Johnny Marr – lead guitar
 * Andy Rourke – bass guitar
 * Mike Joyce – drums
 * Craig Gannon – rhythm guitar

Technical staff

 * Pete Dauncey and Grant Showbiz – producers
 * Paul Nickson – engineer

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Rank (album)


text:
Talk:General Motors LS-based small-block engine

Renamed article and moved Gen II section
When it comes down to it the Gen II engines share nothing in common with the (LS based) Gen III-V engines. The SBC and the Gen II engines however have several key traits in common: Deck height, bore spacing, part interchangeability (namely rotating assembly), and basic block architecture (which is about as strong an argument as you can have). This commonality clearly demonstrates SBC's and Gen II's very close relationship and warrants the Gen II's inclusion on this page. When it comes down to it, the Gen II engines are nothing more than modified SBC engines. Now I know in the process of moving the Gen II section, I might have messed something up. I was forced to rename the LS based engines to something and all I could come up with was Gen III-V small-block (LS based GM small-block engines seems a better choice to me). There shouldn't be too much of an issue calling the Gen V engines LS based after all Deck height, bore spacing, part interchangeability (namely rotating assembly), and basic block architecture is shared with the Gen III and IV engines; the Gen V engine are not exactly clean slate designs. Gulielmi2002 (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove the Gen II engines from this page and merge the Gen II with the Gen I page.
The Gen II engine have mechanically nothing in common with the Gen III thru V engines. The Gen II are bacically Gen I (specifally the Gen I 305 and 350) engines that have been slightly modified to incorporate the Gen II updates; the Gen I and Gen II have similar basic block and mechanical architecture, and there is some good part interchangeability. It makes perfect sense to have the Gen III thru V grouped together beacuse their basic block and mechanical architectures are similar if not the same in many aspects, and there is some good part interchangeability. Having the Gen II on this page also goes againts the basic idea that this page and the Gen I page have: part interchangeability. you can remove the rotating assembly from a Gen II LT1 or Gen II L99 and put them into a Gen I engine with no issue. You can't take the rotating assembly of any Gen II engines and put them into a Gen III thru Gen V engine as they are 100% completely different. you take a Gen III 5.3 L crank and put it into a Gen IV or Gen V and there is not issue epesically if you update the exciter ring on the crank to the a 58x. The Gen III thru Gen V aren't exactly the same but at the same time they aren't 100% different.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

To do: Gen 5 Engines & Tables
The Gen 5 engines need detailed and tables given.

Idea for this page: Give each Generation it's own article. This page is pretty bloated and long, even though I would not say the information is as complete as it could be. The High Feature V6 is well filled out and organized, using that as an example to follow would be good. --2602:306:3778:3089:D414:B29C:71A1:6CA (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Holden VE Commodore Application
The section on the L98 shows application dates of 2006-2007. As far as I'm aware the L98 6.0L V8 is still being fitted to "SS" and "SS-V" variants of the Commodore range and as such should read 2006-present. Open for discussion before edit. Drew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.111.136 (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe earlier ls6 engines were 385 horsepower. The 405 hp version came later, after the addition of lighter valves a higher lift cam and better exhaust. Will do some research and come back.--Ultrapop1 02:10, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * Much appreciated! --SFoskett 03:01, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

LS2 / LS7 Ratings
Chevy rates the LS2 in the C6 at 400 hp @ 6000 rpm, not 405. Also, IIRC the new LS7 has been rated at 505 hp @ 6300 rpm and 470 lbs-ft @ 4800 rpm by the new SAE J2723 rating. Atleast that's according to the GM Small Block blog. I'm going to go ahead and change those.--C-Tine 2 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)

 * You're right. These numbers were fixed on the Chevrolet Corvette page but not here.  Thanks!  --SFoskett July 2, 2005 19:35 (UTC)

''' You all are talking about the LS2 in camaro and other sports cars but what about the LS1 in trans am? Can you tell me how much horsepower it has? The car I'm getting has a LS1 engine with a ram air, how much hp would that have? -HLN'''- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.200.156 (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Ram air almost makes no difference, maybe if you're going 100 mph you MIGHT pick up 3 hp or something....I can't prove this, but the ram air design on these cars are very inefficient, mostly because of the baffles they used to keep rain out of your intake. Either way, your car is probably putting out around 340-350 hp.

 * BTW, the Camaro and the Trans Am got the same engine, the LS1, even the 5th gen Camaro SS got the LS3, never the LS2 99FormulaM6 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Factory Five
I've just removed the reference to the Factory Five from the LS1 section - seeing as it's not a production vehicle (it's a kit car), it's about as relevant as mentioning that there are 1993 RX-7's with LS1s. Ayocee 17:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The Trans Am WS6 makes right around 350ish stock with the ram-air —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.157.165 (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

'550hp' claim
One of GM's favorite things to trumpet about the new Z06 and LS7 is that it is the first engine to be certified using SAE's J2723 test. I find it highly suspect that they would trumpet this, and yet somehow manage to 'miss' 45hp. Ayocee 02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

They didn't "miss" 45hp. An unladden LS7 was SAE tested, not the Z06. The engine is rated for 505hp, and 45 hp is lost throught the drivetrain. It isn't 550hp or even 505hp by the time it gets to the wheels.--24.89.215.104 01:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Incorrect, the LS7 (like all production engines) is rated via engine dynamometer. I.E. the advertised power is what the engine produces at the flywheel. The LS7 only produces 430-460 at the rear wheels as measured via chassis dyno in stock form. To put it simply, the LS7 produces roughly 505 HP at the crank and is NOT "underrated". TheBalance (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Units
An effort should be made to adopt some unit convention, either SI (english) OR english (SI). It reduces the quality of the articles if the units are constantly mixed. For example, the engine size notation ci (cc) is proper if other measurements are cited as inches (centimeters).

That's the interesting part with American engines. The engineers design and build the block with SI, but they publicly post the engine's vital stats in english. The LT and LS blocks were both designed with SI measurement and their displacements are both advertised in metric. In this case, unit conversion should stand as "SI (english)"

With that said, it's safe to say that Detroit doesn't use cubic inches anymore. Only the old guys are calling an LS7 a "427" or an LS1 a "350".--24.89.215.104 23:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The LT block was still designed in inches, it has the same 4.0/3.48 combo that all prior 350's had. That said, anyone calling the LS1 a "350" either works for a parts store or doesn't check their facts...most people refer to it as the 346 that it is, if they call it in cubes.  The LS7 is at least still technically a 427, even if it isa  427.9 cubic inch engine.  Ford can keep the 428 number ;) Ayocee 16:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

HSV GTS
HSV's GTS didn't use the LS6. It used the LS1, that was modified by Callaway & was designated "C4B": http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1553/article.html Aml_0000 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Piston Slap
I think this should be part of the article. There was a class action suit, for LS1s, no? As I recalled there were alot of pist-off GM owners. 192.197.71.189 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) CJ DUB 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There were some, but they still amounted to a small percentage of all LS-series V8's produced. Given that GM has never issued anything more than a TSB for the issue, and that these TSBs only cover engines up through 2002, I think the mention / wording in the article was a bit sensationalist.  For every one vehicle that had an engine replaced, or other bottom-end repairs done to resolve this issue, there are literally thousands on the road with no piston slap problems whatsoever. Ayocee 18:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

 * HAHAHA. Tell that to the people who ended up with piston slap. A manufacturer may not release a recall as this would be admitting there is a known problem, would open them to litigation and more serious class actions. By the way, what's your reference for the numbers of engines w/wo piston slap? CJ DUB 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Please sign your posts. How would a recall open them to more litigation, or any at all?  I have no reference that is not anecdotal (I know many people who own / have owned Generation III V8s and not one has ever had a serious case of piston slap) but I have also never once seen any actual information provided regarding the actual numbers of engines that are affected.  I get the feeling it's as overstated as the Mazda 1.8 #4 failure from 1999-2000, and Mazda did issue a TSB and recall procedure for those.Ayocee 17:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Dude that is a class action suit waiting to happen. You get $10K, I'll find a trial lawyer. The comment "I know many people who own..." is pure anecdote. The article makes it seem as though it something that really happened to nobody. The text entry "However, the scope of the problem appears to be fairly limited as no recall has been issued by General Motors, and the majority of owners of these engines do not report this issue. [citation needed] Additionally, it appears that this issue is confined only to a small number of the engines produced between 1997 and 2002." is also anedotal. Please reference the "fairly limited" and the "only early" engines. I have found evidence that this issue affect 2007 models, even. CJ DUB 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I know that my only evidence is anecdotal (which is why I noted it as such) but I've never seen any non-anecdotal evidence to the contrary. If this is truly a 'class action lawsuit waiting to happen', how has it not happened in the decade that the engine has been out?  Where are the numbers and evidence showing how many engines have actually been replaced due to this problem?  Where are the TSBs relating explicitly to GenIII / IV engines after 2002?  The only TSBs for newer model years that I've found are GM policy changes across GM's whole line, everything below 8500LB, so basically every GM engine from the Ecotec on up except for the Duramax and 496.  Where is the proof that the problem is anything other than a cold-engine noise in almost all cases?  Every Volvo redblock I've ever seen was noisy as hell on startup and yet they'll run 200k or more like it was nothing; cold noise is not a definite indicator for long-term problems.  Where are the used GenIII / IV equipped vehicles with "New engine at xx miles" in the ad?  You'll find it with other vehicles that have engines with longevity issues (such as the FD RX-7...the turbocharged 13B rotary makes for some great power, but cared for improperly and it will eat apex seals like nobody's business).  There isn't much that can be offered as evidence that it is not a large problem, but where is the evidence that it IS a problem?Ayocee 16:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth revisiting this topic and its merits as to inclusion in Wikipedia. My previous reply above may have been worded a bit harshly in exasperation (or whatever it was) but the fact remains that even now the only 'source' available for the problem (as well as its scope and severity) appears to be a site that would arguably fall under the category of a self-published source. I'm not trying to be combative or argumentative here, either; if there's a reputable source that actually shows evidence of piston slap being a) a problem on a significant number of engines and b) a significant issue, I'd love to see it (and cite it for Wikipedia purposes). Ayocee 21:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a 2004 crate LS1 that i bought from Chevrolet and installed in my 2001 Camaro, the engine has Piston Slap from day one.I just let the engine warm up before i drive and BTW I added a supercharger with 8 psi boost and still no problems from it.I drag raced for over 12 years and most of the time I set the engine up loose for piston speed and almost every time had some piston slap. it's not a problem for me. Camaro guy  11:47,June 14 2012

Anyone can say they have a LS1 with pistons slap, but i can't seem to find one even in a used dealer lot with piston slap, found a 5.0L mercury & 5.0 explorer that had piston slap with only 100k miles, and that's a smaller piston. stop making stuff up, this doesn't exist real life, in larger numbers like the 5.0L in SUV's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.159.206 (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"All LS1s make 345hp"
There are known and easily-verified differences in the details of most LS1 variants - the cam used in the Corvette is not the same cam as in the Camaro, and the camshaft specifications changed between 1997-2000 and 2001-on. While it's likely that the actual output is closer than GM would admit, there's no reason to believe that every version of LS1 ever used was actually putting down 345hp. Ayocee 20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * In 2000 all F-bodies dropped the EGR and got the same large overlap cam that was in the 'vettes LS1. Other then exhaust system and air intake before the throttle body the engines are practically the same and produce relatively the same power. The numbers were very close before 2000. Some C5s would dyno more then F-bodies, some would dyno less. The differences mostly fell on an engine to engine basis. I've personally seen show room stock Fbodies and C5s dyno 310+ RWHP and some under 290 on the same dyno.

 * False, the F-Body continued with EGR through 2000; the LS1 in my truck was sourced from a wrecked 2000 Camaro and the EGR system / intake manifold was still present. Additionally, simply because two cars presumed to be stock (it's truly amazing how far one can go with no indications of any modification whatsoever) returned similar rear-wheel horsepower numbers is far from being 'verifiable' according to the Wikipedia standards.  Also, keep in mind the independent rear suspension on the Corvette, which provides a better ride and improved handling...but also causes larger parasitic loss when compared to the simpler live-axle setup of the F-Body. Ayocee 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I was mistaken. In 2001 EGR went away in the F-bodies. Is it possible there was overlap between the 2000-2001 model years engines in Fbodies? I am almost sure I've seen a 2000 LS1 Camaro w/o EGR from the factory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

 * There's no way GM would've done that - they would have had to build two different F-Body engines and there would have been no reason to do so, if not emissions regulations in place making doing so difficult. EGR is very easy to remove, and a "factory" looking job would only require a 2001+ exhaust manifold for the passenger side, one of the non-EGR low profile intake manifolds (Corvette LS1, or LS6), a reflash, and a little creativity with hiding the wiring for the EGR. Ayocee 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * it should be posted as a range of power out puts: 305-330 hp in Fbodies depending on if it was a Z28 or SS version, 345 hp for the vettes, and 350 hp for the GTO. like this LS1 (305-350 hp model and year dependent)Gulielmi2002 (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I think that something should be added about the actual power output of the LS1's....an LS1 is an LS1 is an LS1, year to year differences made almost no differences on power output. I know there was something stated about this already, but I want to clear it up a bit.  In F-body cars, at least, 1998-2000 had a larger cam than in the 2001-2002 models, which dropped EGR to use the LS6 intake manifold and had to have a smaller cam to clear emissions.  In mid 2000, they also changed the head design (to the 241 heads from the 853 heads) which didn't change the design really.  Also, some 2001-2002 LS1's had the LS6 block, which didnt really make a large difference.  Another thing, the 2001-2002 used better headers which did help with power a bit.  Power output didn't change by any large amount after the switch.  F-body cars usually dyno higher than the C5's stock for stock because, as stated, the IRS in the C5's cause a higher drivetrain loss.

 * I just think that something should be included to say that just because your car is rated at 305, you're probably not putting that out at the flywheel, but at the rear wheels. 99FormulaM6 (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Aluminum LH6 reference
All LH6's have aluminum block and heads, right? The LS4 section of this article indicates that it is iron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.180.101 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

reorganization
i am in the process of reorganizing this page to have the same flow as the original small block page and the LT series page. i have included the 4.8, 5.3, and the 6.0 in this page as well.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

ok i have completed the reorganization. this organization shows the relationship between each of the engines, cleans up the flow of this page, and adds the 99 or new V8 vortec engine in this page which needed to be here from the very beginning insted of just putting "car" only V8s. now all three pages that deal with the small blocks V8 (gen I thru gen IV) have the same flow and organization. Gulielmi2002 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Why did you put Vortec engines on an LS engine page? The S in LS is there for a reason.  Viperman5686 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 * the vortec engines(4.8, 5.3, 6.0, and 6.2) in question are LS series engines because their block design is based off of the LS1. vortec is a term that GM uses for an engine that is in a truck.  if i were to get an aluminum 5.3L short block and put it next to an LS1 short block, you couldn't tell that they were two different engines unless you measured their bores or ran their casting numbers.  infact you can save some money in making an LS1 by getting a LM7 and boring it out 120 over.  if you are wanting the LS1 look on the over bored LM7 just add LS1 intake, LS1 accessory drive, and LS1 harmonic balancer.

 * the LS2 that was in the trailblazer had the world vortec on its engine covering, meaning that the term "vortec" is meaningless. really why should it matter if the engine came from a truck or car. i think the real question is why wasn't these engines included when the page was originally made?  the addition of the of the LS based vortec engines makes the LS series page whole and legitate.  now the LS series page isn't about "what did the engine come out of: car or truck?" but "do these engines share a common block architecture and have part interchangeability?".

 * as for the S in LS i have no clue what that means and why its there. what does the T in LT1 standard for?  i know that the S doesn't stand for sport or super because the LS1 took the place of the LT1 inwhich the T definitely doesn't stand for sport or super.  but going back to this page.  if you can give a valid arguement to why the LS based V8 vortecs shouldn't be included on the LS based engine page, they can be removed. Gulielmi2002 (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. Viperman5686 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * your question is a very good and valid one to ask. i am suprized that no one has asked it in this page or the generation I and II pages that i have reorganized with similar questioning considering that all three have similar organisation and flow to them.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

GenIII LS engines are SBC
all the LS engines are SBC. yes they can be found in other brands besides Chevy just like the previous two generations. this is relativily easy and i do mean easy thing to source. after the early 80's all V8's were either a Chevrolet or Cadillac design. the name itself is in referance to small block chevrolet, example: Gen I refers to Generation I small block chevrolet; Gen II refers to Generation II small block chevrolet; and of course Gen III/IV refers to Generation III/IV small block chevrolet. should we stop calling the northstar engines Cadillac engines all together as well and just simple call them premium V8s. technically both names are valid. just like the name SBC in referance to Gen III. it is technically correct to call them GM small blocks just like it is technically correct to call them SBC.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gen III SBC     That's four references to the name in less than a minute of searching.  removal of the Chevrolet from the article is nonsense because you will need to remove it from multiple wiki pages as well as thousands of articles on the net.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Except the Gen III V8 isn't a small block Chevy, it's a GM corporate engine, which GM often referres to as the Gen III V8. TheBalance (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

 * funny here is an artical from GM itself saying: "The 5.7L Gen III LS1 introduced leading-edge technologies to the grand tradition of the Chevrolet small block V8, starting with all-aluminum construction, a thermoplastic intake manifold and drive-by-wire electronic throttle." http://archives.media.gm.com/division/2003_prodinfo/03_powertrain/03_car_engine/index.html . (go to 5.7 L and then click on "what's new".  this is GM saying that its is a SBC.  you can't add to a tradition of SBC if you aren't part of it already. Gulielmi2002 (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Where are you getting this? The engine was referred to as the "5.7L V8 (LS1)" in the document.
 * And "leading-edge technologies to the grand tradition of the Chevrolet small block V8" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the LS1 being considered a small block Chevy, considering it is a corporate engine. The reason the SBC is the SBC is because other GM divisions used their own engine families, had they all used the SBC it would have been the GM or GM corporate small block. That is what the Gen III+ is.

 * Now, click here:, note the LS engine isn't group with the SBC, now click on LS engine and note the description, and I quote, "Below is our LS range of crate engines including the LS1 V8 5.7L crate engine, LS2 V8 6.0L crate engine, LS3 V8 6.2L crate engine, LS6 V8 5.7L crate engine and the LS7 V8 7.0L crate engine described as the most technologically-advanced production GM small-block ever built"
 * Here GM itself tells us what to call the engine family:, and I quote, "Known as the LS Family V-8 small-block".
 * The LS family is not a SBC, it is the corporate GM small block V8.TheBalance (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

it is both, looking at the link does say this. adding to something does mean that it is a part of it. now if the LS engines weren't SBC they line would be this : "Taking or building off (which would imply not SBC) from the grand traditions of the SBC The 5.7L Gen III LS1 introduced starting with all-aluminum construction, a thermoplastic intake manifold and drive-by-wire electronic throttle," but notice that it does say introduced new technologies to SBC. follow the link that i provided. click on the 5.7L in the break down. in the 5.7L spec page click on the Whats new and you will read the exact words that i copied and pasted here. this page predates your reference by 5 years the information predates yours by 11 years. Gulielmi2002 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 * The LS was a clean sheet design, intended from the outset as the corporate small-block. In fact, the LS has more in common design-wise with the small block Ford than it does the SBC.  The LS is not a small block Chevy in any respect, give it up.  TheBalance (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * why give it up when a: GM itself has posted it many times in the LS1 info paper and in the LS7 info paper and b: it beyond easy to get the info and sources example: http://grannys.tripod.com/rx7engineselectioninfo.html and c: the info on how ls1 came to be which was posted in hot rod mag in the early 2000s. really a ford small block...because the heads have semetrical exhaust ports? after the early 80's there were only two brands making V8s, chevy and cadillac....which still hasn't changed.  it is not incorrect to call the LS engines gen III/IV SBC V8s as it also not incorrect to call them just gen III/IV V8s, the latter is just a shorter name for the first oneGulielmi2002 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 * That is hardly a relevant source. GM itself refers to the LSx engines as Gen III/IV small block V8s.
 * The LS is has many similarities with the SBF: identical cylinder head bolt pattern (vastly different from the 5-bolt SBC pattern), symmetrical intake AND exhaust port layout, nearly identical (high) camshaft position in the block, virtually the same deck height as the 351C. The only aspect the LSx shares with the SBC is bore spacing and rod journal diameter.  For instance, LSx heads will bolt onto a 302/351 Ford block without modification, yet will not bolt onto a 350 SBC block, not even close.  The LSx was a clean sheet engine design, one that took essentially nothing from the traditional SBC playbook, and was always intended as a corporate engine, not a "Chevy engine".  The LSx is not a SBC, it is a GM corporate small block, and referring to it as a SBC will only mislead people into thinking it is related to the traditional SBC engine family, when that couldn't be further from the truth.  TheBalance (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion for the last couple of days and have read the sources provided for each side of the argument. I'm going to have to agree with the idea that the GM LS engine is a corporate engine manufactured by GM for use in all of their brands and is not Chevrolet specific in any way. If anything, GM seems to relate to the Chevrolet small-block only in marketing terms and that's probably only because the SBC has some history and identity behind its name. roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 * yes i will agree with the fact that the LS engine are corporate engines but so where the Gen I's after the early 80s. i am not arguing that they can't be called GM Gen III+ small blocks, but i am arguing that they can be called Gen III+ SBC too.  the fact that they started out exclusively chevrolet is one point and more models of the chevrolet line up use them.  just look at the numbers: LS1 exclusively chevy from 97-99; 4.8L exclusively chevy 99-current; 5.3L exclusively chevy 99-02; 6.0 exclusively chevy 99-02. chevrolet heads the non-premium (cady engines) under GM powertrain because they use them more just like cadillac heads the northstar engines under GM powertrain both common knowledge.  other brands under GM use them true and modify them for their needs same was true for the Gen I's because they are corprate engine but who is the main design influence behind them...chevrolet.  just like you can call the high feature V6s cady/holden engines because they designed them and yes they too are corporate engine as well.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The sbc (not the corporate v-8 LS engines)was not a corporate engine. If it was then the Olds v-8 was as well, since they put them in several car lines from different divisions up to 1990.

what about the 8.1 liter
Unless I just missed it I heard no mention of the 8.1L —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.182.76 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * the 8.1 L vortec is a BBC engine with some mods originating from LS family. i went to a car dealership (ron carder in alvin, tx awhile back) and they had a cut-away of this 8.1L engine.  externally and internally its a BBC; basically it's a stroked 454 with coil over plug, and even retains its hole for a distributor, but that hole is being used for some sensor that is used for timing of the coilsGulielmi2002 (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The 8.1 (496 cu.in.) isn't even close to a big block Chevy. Completely different engine. The 8.2 (502 cu.in.) is a big block Chevy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.79.0 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no argument when an actual cutaway engine is displayed showing that it is nothing more than a BBC with modifications and/or upgrades. Firing order, size, nor does upgraded coil packs make the 8.1 not a BBC. Deck height, bore spacing, part interchangeability, and overall block architecture do, and in this case does. The proof is in the engine cutaway.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Pictures
Some pictures showing the engines apart of cars would be informative. --46.115.124.135 (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) with reference to the 8.1 or 496 engine comments and particularly about the cutaway confirming it is nothing but a modified BBC i note the following having dealt with theses engines in marine applications. Pistons are side specific, crank is specific, flywheel and balancer are specific, heads are left and right not interchangeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius750 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

LS1 engine shares firing order with Toyota UZ engine
Toyota UZ engine came before Ford modular and LS engines, so why are we using Ford as an example for firing order. this follow an incorrect fanboy argument that LS engine is just a copy of a Ford design, and serves no other purpose. Ford modular 4.6L OHC only made 210hp while Northstar 4.6L OHC made 300hp, so i think Modular is a bad example of a modern engine.

First Generation
what happened to the first generation in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BIGBLOCKFAN (talk • contribs) 15:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * BIGBLOCKFAN, there was never a first generation General Motors small-block engine. General Motors considers the Chevrolet small-block engine as the "first generation" small-block engine. However, it should be noted that the General Motors small-block engines are a corporate design and differ significantly from the original Chevrolet small-block engine design; enough to warrant a separate article. I hope that makes sense. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/General Motors Gen 5 "Small Block"
Please consider incorporating any useful information from this submission. ~KvnG 00:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

LS or LSx?
Technically, there is always a number after LS, and no single engine called just LS. Instead of listing all the numbers, the common number substitution is "x". LSX Forum, LSX Fest, LSX Challenge, etc. Shouldn't it have that here? Plus, if you remember the ricer craze, LS is a Honda engine. 68.229.212.186 (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on LS based GM small-block engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120317125329/http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/Whats%20New/Gen%20IV/Gen%20IV%20Car/08_LS4.doc to http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/Whats%20New/Gen%20IV/Gen%20IV%20Car/08_LS4.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Aluminum block cylinder liners
I noticed a recent edit regarding cylinder liners on the aluminum blocks was reverted. Thing is, it's true, the aluminum block LS and LT engines use cast iron liners. Carguy1701 (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LS based GM small-block engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012042027/http://www.idavette.net/hib/ls6/page3.htm to http://www.idavette.net/hib/ls6/page3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620181509/http://www.motoring.com.au/reviews/2008/large-passenger/holden-special-vehicles/gts/csv-gts-ls7-5794 to http://www.motoring.com.au/reviews/2008/large-passenger/holden-special-vehicles/gts/csv-gts-ls7-5794

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

engine table
Add information about LT5 (376 ci V8 DOHC for 2018 Corvette ZR1) and LF3 (3.6L V6 DOHC twin turbo for 2020 Corvette C8) with same engine technology. Reference 3 minutes 30 seconds into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq7YimybK_w&t=184s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.253.2 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LS based GM small-block engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702155012/http://gmpowertrain.com/VehicleEngines/PowertrainProducts.aspx to http://gmpowertrain.com/VehicleEngines/PowertrainProducts.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050112062930/http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2006/LS7.shtml to http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2006/LS7.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820143041/http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/AutoshowArticles/articleId%3D117396 to http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/AutoshowArticles/articleId%3D117396

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LS based GM small-block engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424194327/http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Vehicles/Performance/Engine_Showcase/LS/01_images/LS9%20Crate%20Engine%2019244099.pdf to http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Vehicles/Performance/Engine_Showcase/LS/01_images/LS9%20Crate%20Engine%2019244099.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Swaps vs transmission mating?
I assume this is well known among people who actually do LSx swaps but do the different engines or even generations generally mate up with a given GM vehicle's existing transmission? e.g. would an LM7 bolt up to an LR4 truck? The C5+ Corvettes have transaxles so obviously the torque tube is not shared, but what about the other platforms? I'm not looking for advice, and I don't think wiki would be the place to ask for it, I just think it would be notable one way or the other in terms of the history and continuity of the "GM small-block" that has been called so since 1955.74.96.220.27 (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If my memory is correct, the LM7 and the LR4 used the same transmission during production, so yeah. Hell, the only difference with the LSx bellhousing bolt pattern versus the classic SBC is one bolt, IIRC. Carguy1701 (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Why LS?
Does LS stand for something? MBG02 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not particularly, no. However, GM engine RPO codes usually use the letter L as the first digit, and obviously the LS1 was the first member of the family, hence the designation. Carguy1701 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Interchange between Gen III/IV and Gen V?
I was thinking about this idly (and got into a minor argument on Facebook over it), but the LT engines shouldn't have much if any interchange with the LS engines, should they? I know the top ends are different (the valve layout in the heads is flipped: intakes on an LT are where exhausts would be on an LS and vice versa), as well as camshafts (since LT cams need an addition on the end for the HPFP, something LS engines lack), but do the rotating assemblies have any interchange at all? I had added a note about the design differences in the Gen V section but I'll admit I'm not 100% sure. Carguy1701 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * doesn't seem like it, I looked up rotating assembly products for various LS engines, and it seems that gen III/IV are definitely interchangeable whilst the gen V doesn't show up. Hope this helps (albeit it is a bit late) Obama gaming (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Gen VI removal
In my opinion the Gen VI doesn't have this place in this article. As the sources already in this section points out, the LT6 is a clean sheet design. No major parts are interchangable and the only characteristic that is tuely shared is the bore spacing.

The Gen V also had little part intechangability with the gen III end IV, but those still had an obvious filiation in the concept (pushrod 16 valve) and the general shape of the components. This is not something that we have in the Gen VI.

Frongicide (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree, for the same reasons you listed. Unless GM officially calls it a Small Block (and/or Gen VI, I honestly don't recall any of the articles for the C8 Z06 or the engine using that term), it should be spun off into its own article. Carguy1701 (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Understand where you're coming from but until GM officially says otherwise, we're treating this as a sixth generation block. We'll keep an eye on it, & if any updates pop in the next couple of months I'll be more than willing to move it to it's own page. Obama gaming (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

 * I would agree with this is if that page was titled something like "Chevrolet small block engine family" and would encompass all gens from I to VI, but currently gen I and II have their own dedicated page. If gen I and II are different enough to LS based engines warrant their own page, then surely gen VI is too. But currently this page is titled "General Motors LS-based small-block engine", wich is not a good fit for the content of the page since while the LT6 fits the usual criterias for a small block, it is not based on the LS. Moreover, the intro of the page makes goes into detail about the choice of pushrod thechnolgy and the consequences of that choice in terms of packaging and costs, wich doesn't applies to the LT6 since it is DOHC. Frongicide (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes I see where you're coming from, but as you can see from this article it is still referred to as a small block, and until GM releases another engine similar to this current "architecture" then we can seriously consider creating it's own page like for generation I & II. So for now, we'll keep it here. For now. Obama gaming (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I am not, and have never been, contesting the "small block" part. I am contesting the "LS based" part. I find it ludicrous that we have an engine explicitely descibed as not based on the LS at the end of an article about LS based engines. If you want to wait before the split, then this page should be renamed as "modern Chevrolet Small Block engine", or something like that. The Blackwing fits the criteria for a small block too and yet has its own page - Despite the fact that it was essentially only produced in one version (with two different ouputs but hey, so was the LS3). Frongicide (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah mate I definitely agree, I just have no idea what to name the new article. Any suggestions? Obama gaming (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I'd say "modern Chevrolet Small Block engine" or "Post-LS General Motors small block engine" Frongicide (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, do you think something like "Chevrolet small-block engine (sixth generation)" could work? Because obviously we don't know if this is a chevy exclusive or GM-wide engine, but those are good ones Obama gaming (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Oh you meant you agree on splitting ? Great ! "Chevrolet small-block engine (sixth generation)" would indeed be the most appropriate name for the dedicated Gen VI page IMO yes Frongicide (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I have created a dedicated page with this name. Content is mostly info that was on this page for now. Frongicide (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Tone
It would seem this article was written by fanbois? 2607:F598:B69A:8D0:AD0B:1E18:FE37:B537 (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are 1-2 paragraphs that could stand a rework, even though the info is nominally correct. Carguy1701 (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The introduction is certainly worded in a way that it completely deserves a re-write, but I'm not quite sure if we should remove it or reword it. The whole article needs a refresh to be honest, I'm just starting off with easy things such as replacing dead links for dyno charts. Obama gaming (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I might take a stab at the one where Sloppy is namedropped if I get time, but if you beat me to it I won't complain. Carguy1701 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Would pointing out that some LS engines outpowered their slightly larger Ford counterparts be too fanboyish? Examples would be how the 4.8L rather handily outpowered the 4.6L 2V in trucks and vans, as well as the 5.3L outpowering the 5.4L in both 2V and 3V forms. Carguy1701 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that should be mentioned, unless there are specific mentions in tertiary sources (i.e. the 4.8L was the most powerful engine when it was released in X vehicle, more powerful than its Ford counterpart in Y vehicle). Otherwise I think it's WP:UNDUE. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 23:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Carguy1701 (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

LT4 in Escalade-V
Since this seems to be a hot button issue, I'll quote Cadillac's own press release: "The Escalade-V’s engine shares architectural similarities with the CT5-V Blackwing’s supercharged V-8, but features a larger, 2.65L R2650 TVS supercharger that helps overcome the higher inlet and exhaust restrictions on the full-size SUV application."; Car and Driver essentially says the same thing. That sounds like it's a modified version of the LT4. However, the press release does not give an RPO code for the engine (I think the press release for the CT5-V Blackwing did, for context). I'll admit I can't see GM developing a new variant of the Gen V engine for one application, but until we've got more concrete information, I think we should hold off on adding the Escalade-V to the LT4 application table. Carguy1701 (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you insist, . I have no objections. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 02:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Jalopnik says it is in fact the LT4. The supercharger (and block casting, apparently) are different from the CT5-V Blackwing. Wouldn't be the first time that GM has done something like this (the twin versions of the LT1 from the 90s come to mind). Carguy1701 (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep. Lot of articles say the engine is the same from the CT5-V blackwing (which has the same block, but a 2.65L supercharger instead of whatever the original displacement was). Cheers GM. Makes things really clear. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 23:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Anchor
For anyone wondering; I've rectified the broken anchor by red-adding it into the Silverado page. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 19:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Displacements
In several places, there appear to be incorrect cubic inch displacements. For example, the 5.3L Gen V L83 is listed as being 320 ci, but the 96 mm x 92 mm creates a 325 ci displacement. I was wondering whether the article or the calculator is correct. Thanks! 209.122.138.80 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


text:
Oregon (disambiguation)

Oregon is a U.S. state in the Pacific Northwest

Oregon may also refer to:

Places

 * United States
 * Oregon, Arkansas
 * Oregon, Illinois
 * Oregon, Kentucky
 * Oregon, Maryland
 * Oregon, Missouri
 * Oregon, Ohio
 * Oregon, Pennsylvania
 * Oregon, Tennessee
 * Oregon (town), Wisconsin
 * Oregon, Wisconsin (the village it contains)
 * Oregon City, California
 * Oregon City, Oregon
 * Oregon County, Missouri
 * Oregon District, a neighborhood in Dayton, Ohio
 * Oregon Hill, a neighborhood in Richmond, Virginia
 * Oregon Inlet, an inlet in the state of North Carolina
 * Oregon Township, Michigan
 * Oregon Township, Pennsylvania

Historical usage

 * Oregon (toponym), etymology of the name "Oregon"
 * Oregon Country
 * Oregon Mission
 * Oregon Territory
 * Oregon Trail

Botany

 * Douglas-fir, a timber commonly known as "oregon" or "oregon pine"
 * The Oregon-grape, a plant in the genus Mahonia

Music

 * Oregon (band), an American jazz and world music group
 * Oregon (album)
 * Oregon, a piece of music for concert band, by James Swearingen
 * Oregon, a composition by composer Jacob de Haan
 * Oregon, a song written by John Linnell

Ships

 * Oregon (sidewheeler 1852), a steamboat in Oregon, United States, in the 1850s
 * CSS Oregon, a Confederate gunboat
 * NOAAS Oregon (R 551), a fisheries research vessel in service with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1949 to 1970 and with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from 1970 to 1980
 * NOAAS Oregon II (R 332), a fisheries research vessel in service with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1967 to 1970 and with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration since 1970
 * SS Oregon, the name of a number of ships
 * USS Oregon, the name of a number of U.S. Navy ships

Universities

 * Oregon State University, a public university in Corvallis, Oregon
 * University of Oregon, a public university in Eugene, Oregon

Other

 * "Oregon" (Awake), a television episode
 * Oregon Ducks, the athletic program of the University of Oregon
 * Oregon State Beavers, the athletic program of the Oregon State University
 * Oregon Scientific, a manufacturer of electronic products
 * The Oricon Charts, often mis-romanized as the "Oregon Charts"
 * The Oregon Files, a group of novels written by author Clive Cussler
 * Oregon Tool, American tool manufacturer known for their saw chains

title: Oregon (disambiguation)


text:
Clearasil

Clearasil is a brand of skin care and acne medication, whose products contain chiefly benzoyl peroxide, sulfur and resorcinol, triclosan, or salicylic acid as active ingredients. Clearasil has a wide range of products both for rapid and sometimes slow acne treatment and for everyday prevention. The products are marketed to customers worldwide.

History
Clearasil was invented in the United States in 1950 by Ivan Combe with the help of chemist Kedzie Teller. At this time, it was the first dermatological brand created specially for younger skin to fight against pimples (acne). The active ingredients in the original product were sulfur and resorcinol, similar to the pre-existing adult acne product Acnomel. Combe used the popular ABC television show American Bandstand to help promote the product and its superior smell.

In 1960 the brand was bought by Richardson-Vicks. In 1975, Wolfman Jack signed a contract promoting the product Clearasil Acne Ointment. In 1985 Richardson-Vicks was acquired by Procter & Gamble together with Clearasil. In 2000 Clearasil moved to the Boots Group portfolio. In 2006 Boots Healthcare International was purchased by the British-Dutch company Reckitt Benckiser.

Controversy
A 2018 ad titled Pimples Make Terrible Prom Dates was called homophobic by critics, who accused it of promoting anti-gay stereotypes. The ad features 2 teenage girls preparing for Prom, when one discovers a pimple. The pimple is shown as an effeminate man with a shrieking voice in a pink ruffled suit who punctuates his words with a flamboyant kick before flipping his hair back and settling into a pointed toe pose. After, an application of Clearasil kills it, and their prom dates are saved.

title: Clearasil