LT1-LT4 Modifications 1993-97 Gen II Small Block V8

Actual power?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-16-2008, 10:05 PM
  #1  
12 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Speedmonster185's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lafayette/West Lafayette, IN
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default Actual power?

Ok, I have a quick question I've been curious about for a while. I know the F-body's were underrated with the ls1 and actually made the same power as the 'vette, so was it the same way with the LT1s? Were they actually 300bhp like the 'vettes and just advertised lower by GM, or were they really restricted somehow?

Thanks for easing my curiosity
Old 02-16-2008, 11:25 PM
  #2  
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (11)
 
infinitebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,280
Received 46 Likes on 35 Posts

Default

yes, the LT1 was underrated similar, about 300 fwhp is correct.
Old 02-16-2008, 11:52 PM
  #3  
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (31)
 
96lt1m6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LA$ VEGA$
Posts: 3,782
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts

Default

the difference as i see it is the air intake and the dual exhaust!
Old 02-17-2008, 12:43 AM
  #4  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (30)
 
sweet-94z28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

I would say the exhaust is the huge difference. My car runs better than my dad's vette ever since I got the chambered straight pipes.
Old 02-17-2008, 01:14 AM
  #5  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (4)
 
gatorhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

They were detuned and restricted due to intake and exhaust.
Old 02-17-2008, 01:21 AM
  #6  
12 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Speedmonster185's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lafayette/West Lafayette, IN
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

So really f-bodies would stand to gain a lot more with bolt-ons than the corvettes it sounds like.
Old 02-17-2008, 01:49 AM
  #7  
Launching!
iTrader: (8)
 
bigbadblack93z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Katy
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Default

They are just restricted. a 52 mm TB, hypertech and k&n cai I put down 251 with 120k miles on an otherwise bonestock car.
Old 02-17-2008, 02:08 AM
  #8  
TECH Resident
iTrader: (1)
 
1994Z28Lt1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Elko MN
Posts: 833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

my car is an M6 and i had it dynoed when it was bonestock before i did any mods to it and the dyno sheet is in my sig it put down almost 271 hp and 314 ft lbs tq on a dynojet and those numbers are SAE corrected as well

with an m6 numbers for driveline loss are usually in the 13-15 percent range so that would have put my stock engine at just a bit over 310 hp, underrated? very much so
Old 02-17-2008, 02:30 AM
  #9  
Launching!
iTrader: (1)
 
CaribooLou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Lt1 For Life^^^^
Old 02-17-2008, 03:00 AM
  #10  
TECH Addict
iTrader: (30)
 
tspence45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Monmouth, Illinois
Posts: 2,153
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Default

Originally Posted by 1994Z28Lt1
my car is an M6 and i had it dynoed when it was bonestock before i did any mods to it and the dyno sheet is in my sig it put down almost 271 hp and 314 ft lbs tq on a dynojet and those numbers are SAE corrected as well

with an m6 numbers for driveline loss are usually in the 13-15 percent range so that would have put my stock engine at just a bit over 310 hp, underrated? very much so
Not too shabby considering our cars are rated at 275hp and 325lbft at the crank. I want to get my car dynoed sometime after I get some LT's, true duals, and a mail-order tune, to see what I can put down. The community college I'll start going to next fall for automotive classes has a dyno, so hopefully I'll be able to do it sometime.
Old 02-17-2008, 01:14 PM
  #11  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
 
99.9percenter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by infinitebird
yes, the LT1 was underrated similar, about 300 fwhp is correct.
Nope!!! 275 flywheel with the f-body single cat y-pipe. It was the same engine as the Vette but with the f-body single cat y-pipe and s-10 air box 275 hp (I had the factory dyno sheet in my hands).
Old 02-17-2008, 01:21 PM
  #12  
12 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Speedmonster185's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lafayette/West Lafayette, IN
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Sounds like nobody agrees
Old 02-17-2008, 01:35 PM
  #13  
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (11)
 
infinitebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,280
Received 46 Likes on 35 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by 99.9percenter
Nope!!! 275 flywheel with the f-body single cat y-pipe. It was the same engine as the Vette but with the f-body single cat y-pipe and s-10 air box 275 hp (I had the factory dyno sheet in my hands).
You are sorely mistaken. Please do basic research before making these kinds of uninformed statements.

275 flywheel is what GM rated the LT1 in the f-body. That is NOT accurate, considering that most stock autos dyno 250-260 rear wheel and most manuals 260-270. Doing basic math with a reasonable drivetrain loss percentage you can easily conclude that 275 flywheel is a substantial underrating.

This has been gone over so many times on this forum. Please do a search.
Old 02-17-2008, 01:41 PM
  #14  
Staging Lane
 
slippinsideways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: central IL
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

when i had my car baslined it was 298 hp to the wheels and 325ish ftlbs to the wheels
only thing it had was an intake and exhaust...

so underated i would say!
Old 02-17-2008, 03:31 PM
  #15  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (4)
 
gatorhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

You are sorely mistaken. Please do basic research before making these kinds of uninformed statements.

275 flywheel is what GM rated the LT1 in the f-body. That is NOT accurate, considering that most stock autos dyno 250-260 rear wheel and most manuals 260-270. Doing basic math with a reasonable drivetrain loss percentage you can easily conclude that 275 flywheel is a substantial underrating.

This has been gone over so many times on this forum. Please do a search.
If I may add something here that might make a difference...........
The two of us could build identical motors using identical parts and they would not dyno the same, so with that in mind 200k plus assembly line based cars would fall into the same category. Ther are the ones referred to as factory freaks, but that too is just one or two out of thousands in that particular lot.
The difference between the years could aslo be attributed to the fact that one had a single cat and the other dual, and the dual outflowed the single. Depending on the year you would see a relavant factory rating in most cars, but not all, same as an advertised 400hp crate motor some are well over some just under.
I am not arguing just stating this. I also am partners in a speed shop and we have a mustang dyno and the average, rather what I would use to baseline auto LT1's in 240 rwhp, and manual 260rwhp.
Changing any component and reflashing the pcm will give you a standard 300fwhp same as a vette which came with the optimum tuning package and free flowing exhaust and intake. You wouldn't want a 20k car selling next to a 50k car with the same advertised numbers and thats why they do it.
Back in the heydays they did it to conform to insurance regulations, and a recent episode on American Muscle cars dynoed the engines as they were. I believe the engines were the chevy 409, hemi(BIG ONE), Ford 427 and a few others. The hemi dymoed 800hp.......and was advertised at 450 now THAT IS UNDERATED!
Again folks it is bench racing, not a life or death thing and there are many published articles that support both claims as mentioned above, just thought I would give my take on it.
Old 02-17-2008, 03:56 PM
  #16  
TECH Resident
iTrader: (1)
 
1994Z28Lt1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Elko MN
Posts: 833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by gatorhead
I believe the engines were the chevy 409, hemi(BIG ONE), Ford 427 and a few others. The hemi dymoed 800hp.......and was advertised at 450 now THAT IS UNDERATED!
Again folks it is bench racing, not a life or death thing and there are many published articles that support both claims as mentioned above, just thought I would give my take on it.
This has already been disputed and its been deduced that the hemi that supposedly dynoed 820 hp was heavily modified, according to the testing it put down 820 hp at 6400 rpm, this is completely bogus because it would take more than 100% volumetric efficiency to produce those numbers at such a low rpm

and when you think back and consider how close vehicles like the 1970 ls-6 chevelle 454 rated at 450hp (considered closer to 550) and the Buick stage I rated at 360 hp (probably closer to 550 since it ran right with the LS-6. both of these cars ran right with the hemi's at the time which definitely makes you question the validity of a supposed stock 426 hemi putting down 820 hp
Old 02-17-2008, 04:02 PM
  #17  
TECH Resident
iTrader: (1)
 
1994Z28Lt1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Elko MN
Posts: 833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

check out this website and take a look at what the 1970 hemi cuda trapped in the quarter mile and how close it is with the ls-6 and buick stage I and these 820 horse hemi's idea can be put to rest

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...s-50fast.shtml
Old 02-17-2008, 05:05 PM
  #18  
11 Second Club
iTrader: (35)
 
StealthFormula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Skippack, PA
Posts: 4,798
Received 54 Likes on 50 Posts

Default

^^I heard something about that 820hp 426 Hemi from a friend, talk about BS being stock. I heard they were more like 500-550hp motors from a Hemi guru.
Old 02-17-2008, 05:31 PM
  #19  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (22)
 
zigroid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 18013
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

I heard of a hemi cuda dynoing 330-340 rwhp stock through a 4 speed manual.
Old 02-17-2008, 11:26 PM
  #20  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (4)
 
gatorhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 1994Z28Lt1
This has already been disputed and its been deduced that the hemi that supposedly dynoed 820 hp was heavily modified, according to the testing it put down 820 hp at 6400 rpm, this is completely bogus because it would take more than 100% volumetric efficiency to produce those numbers at such a low rpm

and when you think back and consider how close vehicles like the 1970 ls-6 chevelle 454 rated at 450hp (considered closer to 550) and the Buick stage I rated at 360 hp (probably closer to 550 since it ran right with the LS-6. both of these cars ran right with the hemi's at the time which definitely makes you question the validity of a supposed stock 426 hemi putting down 820 hp
I watched the episode and spit my drink up when the numbers came in.....I thought the Ford 427 was high too at 600 + hp........
Both moot points as I was just stating that those were truly underated as compared to a 20 to 30 hp underating found today. Back then it was for insurance, today it is emissions.


Quick Reply: Actual power?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21 AM.