Corvette History Part 7: Dawn of the LS Engine & C5 Corvette

How being too successful almost ruined GM and gave birth to the iconic C5 Corvette and the world’s most popular V8.

Many have heard the C5 Corvette was almost canceled. Halo sports cars are always in danger whenever company financials turn south. But did you know the budgetary crisis that would have killed the C5 was caused because GM actually made TOO MANY popular, reliable cars?

Chevrolet didn’t exactly have an easy time in the late 80s and early 90s. Newer, higher-quality, and inexpensive Japanese compacts dominated the roads, sapping sales away from the fullsize American counterparts. The Corvette escaped the brunt of this impact, being Chevrolet’s halo car.

The focus primarily switched instead to two divisions: base-model cars and compact SUVs. Bear in mind, most new car owners during those times were more focused on economy and reliability thanks to the strict emissions regulations from the Oil Crisis. And outside of some oddballs (The GMC Typhoon/Syclone, Buick GNX), GM’s bread and butter focused on its joint venture with Toyota. In 1986, its main top-seller became the Celebrity, a midsize sedan. A far cry from the 70s, for sure. But even with over 2 million units sold alone (plus another 1.9 million Chevettes in the 80s), it wasn’t paying the bills.

GM was at its height of popularity as America’s premiere affordable car of choice. And it was about to hit rock bottom. So what happened, and how does this affect the Corvette? Well, let’s talk about that. And then talk about how that all changed, and how the new LS engine fits into this picture.

Too Popular + Too Reliable = Too Many Parts

The main issue with GM’s budget had both everything and nothing to do with its popularity. The vehicles sold like hotcakes, even with sales from rival companies like Chrysler eating into sales with their revolutionary minivan and the Jeep Cherokee unibody. Rather, this popularity proved its downfall, not in its ability to put wheels in driveways, but in its archaic views on parts suppliers.

Let’s cast our minds back to the 1920s. Back then, the automobile wasn’t nearly as popular as it was in the 80s. Not to mention that cars weren’t exactly known for their reliability. So GM instilled a policy whereby it essentially treated excess inventory like cash. It saved most parts it overproduced, which was fine for resupplying parts stores. But the problems came with needing to maintain the original numbers of excess parts when you’re producing millions of (more reliable) cars. The cost-benefit ratio dropped sharply, and GM plummeted into debt as it struggled to maintain its bloated inventories. Bear in mind, these parts needed updating following the Oil Crisis as well, and new cars necessitated new inventory. The cost of storing these components, therefore, became untenable for GM.

Meanwhile, the Corvette, using the standard small-block V8, shared a lot of commonalities, which was no accident. With its relatively low production figures, it didn’t exactly eat into this profit margin, either. Even the original LT engine’s cost was relatively light by comparison. So while most of Chevrolet suffered dramatically throughout the 80s, the Corvette itself was never a core part of the problem.

As a result of these issues, GM enacted sweeping reforms throughout the early 90s, totally revamping its manufacturing processes from the ground up. These reforms dramatically improved the cost overhead with their perennial small and midsize fleet. This became doubly important for the C5 Corvette, which was slated to be a totally clean-sheet design. This included the chassis, engine – everything. We’ll get there, don’t worry. The important thing to remember is that this design philosophy wouldn’t have been feasible without these changes. With all that in place, plus some incredible minds, the stars aligned in May of 1992.

A Clean Sheet

The initial conception of the LS engine began on a whim, more or less. GM was co-developing a double-overhead-cam engine with Lotus and put that in a Corvette. That exceptional engine left such an impression on executives that they greenlit the project for a new V8 on the spot. Tom Stephens, head of GM’s Powertrains division, took charge. GM tasked Stephens with developing an engine that was more powerful, more efficient, more reliable, and less expensive than any regular-production small-block V8 in their fleet. He handpicked designers from GM’s Skunkworks and set up shop, penning the initial designs for what became the most ubiquitous V8 the world’s ever seen.

Stephens truly developed a clean-sheet design. The result shared nothing with previous generations outside of valve lifters and conrod bearings. Stephens designed it as a pushrod engine due to the layout’s compactness, dependability, and affordability. However, this didn’t impress critics at the time, who claimed the new engine to be “archaic.”In spite of this, the team stuck to their guns, ditching the distributor for individual coils and adopting a brand-new squared-off head design. Coupled with aluminum blocks for passenger cars (like the Corvette), this engine immediately proved itself an absolute champion of durability and simplicity. Named “LS” after its RPO code, its compact design quickly endeared it to rodders, who took one look at it and had to wipe the drool off their chins. And who could blame them?

Since its inception, the LS-platform as a whole became the ubiquitous go-to for engine swaps, with the term “LS swap” garnering a certain infamy in itself. Proponents of the LS cite its massive aftermarket culture, inherent reliability, and rock-solid design. After all, an LS can (and will) produce over 600 horsepower without sacrificing that reliability. Which is important for an engine designed, fundamentally, to get you from Point A to B as opposed to a one-trick pony. And the LS granted that power to the common commuter with the desire for speed. Its universal appeal really made it a love-hate affair within the automotive community. But all critiques of originality aside, we all agree that the LS is the most influential pushrod V8 of all time. A reputation well-deserved.

Innovations from Factory to Showroom Floor

We talked about how GM overhauled its entire managerial and manufacturing system. But how does that translate directly to the new generation of Corvette? Well, as the flagship halo car, GM placed a great deal of development time into getting this one right. Not that the C4 was bad, of course. But with the rise of the hypercar and the smoothing out of the boxy designs of the 80s, it was time for Corvette to receive yet another total redesign. And this design extended well beyond just the new LS-platform. In fact, the only thing the new C5 had in common with the C4 was the 4L60 automatic transmission.

Let’s start from the very, very beginning. In 1997, the C5 became the first mass-produced vehicle utilizing a hydroformed frame. As it sounds, hydroforming is the shaping of a component using water injected into a master die. This enabled lightweight, complex, and consistently-shaped unibody structures. Underneath the skin, GM moved the gearbox rearward, creating a transaxle setup for better weight distribution.

Thanks to its inherently compact design, the C5 retained the general silhouette of the C4 with the tapered nose. However, its exterior, completed by John Cafaro in 1993, shared very few similarities. Especially in the design phase, where Cafaro’s team experimented with a highly curvy aesthetic, contrasting the C4’s boxier shape. They even considered alternative engine layouts to fit this template, similar to exotic concepts like the Vector WX-3.

#gallery-1 {
margin: auto;
}
#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
float: left;
margin-top: 10px;
text-align: center;
width: 50%;
}
#gallery-1 img {
border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
}
#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
margin-left: 0;
}
/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

Cafaro himself became the youngest GM design chief at 34 years old in 1988. Tasked with sculpting the C5 Corvette, his six-man skunkworks team penned dozens of designs over the following months. The car, he knew, had to be perfect. GM fought hard to get out of the slump of the 80s, and this car represented that triumphant return to form. The end result of which remains the US’s final answer to the European supercars of the 90s. With comparable performance to high-end Porsches and even sleeker body lines, the Corvette left a lasting impression at its debut in Detroit on January 6, 1997. Even more impressive was the price tag – $37,495.00 MSRP, compared to $64,515.00 for a 911.

C5 Corvette: A Legacy Begins

GM began selling the C5 Corvette on March 7, 1997, to widespread global appeal. Even before production started, people saw the Corvette name as one synonymous with inexpensive speed. Although this speed came at a cost in other ways – namely, efficiency, overseas appeal, and general refinement. The C4 was nice, but by 1995, it wasn’t nice nice anymore. Well, the C5 improved on all of these fronts, and more. Word spread quickly throughout Europe and Japan. The likes of the 911, RX-7, Supra, DB7, and others had competition. From the US, no less. And it was fast, nice, appealing, and inexpensive to daily. It didn’t need premium fuels, nor did it need hefty repair bills. And for its time, the car was very well-equipped and refined.

Essentially, the C5 is the reason why the Corvette name is spoken today in the same conversation as the European and Japanese giants. If it wasn’t for the radically altered body, the all-new engine and underpinnings, or the innovative manufacturing processes, Corvette would’ve failed in 1995. GM risked a great deal of reputation and capital on the success of the C5, and its legacy has yet to disappoint. Its returns speak for themselves. The C5 became the most-sold Corvette in the last decade by 1998, for example. Throughout 2004, it received numerous upgrade packages, the most major being the return of the Z06. We’ll discuss all that and more in the next installment of the series.

Design sketches from:The Corvette Story

Brochures used: 1997 – 1999 Corvette

.

‎