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

Wtf

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-23-2008, 03:51 PM
  #1  
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
 
lt1formula275's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unhappy Wtf

i heard today that an lt1 can be a 5.0 is this true i said that was bs at least im pretty sure the lt1s in the f bodys 93 - 97 have the 5.7 they said it was in the convertibles but mines a vert and its got a 5.7
Old 09-23-2008, 03:57 PM
  #2  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (35)
 
baylove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: mesa,arizona
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

5.0 ?? where did you hear that ? from what i know 93-97 fbodys with lt1's are 5.7
Old 09-23-2008, 03:58 PM
  #3  
Teching In
 
Slo96WS6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Moline, IL
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

ALL LT1's are 5.7 L or 350's
Old 09-23-2008, 04:00 PM
  #4  
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

Whoever told you that is an idiot! Only had 5.7's. The 3rd gens F-body's you could get in a 5.0 305 but from '93-'97 only 5.7
Old 09-23-2008, 04:06 PM
  #5  
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
 
lt1formula275's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

thank u i didnt want to say anything to them cause i didnt want to look like a dumbass if he was right
Old 09-23-2008, 07:18 PM
  #6  
On The Tree
iTrader: (3)
 
Smokeshow_2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

there is a "baby" LT1, but it was never in an f-body.
Old 09-23-2008, 07:29 PM
  #7  
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (12)
 
wrd1972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 4,649
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts

Default

crack smoker
Old 09-23-2008, 07:32 PM
  #8  
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (8)
 
sdm1234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland Twp/Milford, New Jersey
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

The LT1 has always been a 5.7L. Maybe he's thinking about 3rd gens.
Old 09-23-2008, 08:14 PM
  #9  
11 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
 
96capricemgr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,975
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 12 Posts

Default

There is a 4.3L version of the LT1, is externally the same except for casting numbers.

Was the base engine in the 94-6 Caprice sedans only be they police or civilian cars.

The option code for it was L99.

To further confuse matters they used a "W" VIN code which was the 4.3L V6 code.

HUGE amount of missinformation out there on this.
Old 09-23-2008, 09:08 PM
  #10  
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
 
Camaro_94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by wrd1972
crack smoker
I agree. lol

But yes, all 97-97 V8 F-Bodies came with LT1's which are 350's.

- Mike
Old 09-23-2008, 10:17 PM
  #11  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Formula350's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Decatur, TN (N-W of Athens)
Posts: 7,564
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

The only way to make a "stock" (via factory parts) LT1 down that low is to use a 4.3 Baby LT1 crank (with 350 rods) in a 5.7 LT1. That makes a 4.9L (302cid) motor. Use the 4.3L crank AND rods and you get 5.3L. Only benefit would be it being quite the rev happy motor and a flatter tq and hp curve heh Side effect would be quite a big hit in torque.
Old 09-24-2008, 05:07 AM
  #12  
11 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
 
96capricemgr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,975
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 12 Posts

Default

One of the Impala guys did that with my old L99 crank and rods for a 302 with stock LT1 pistons and yeah it sucked.

Must be a typo that you think rods affect displacement?
Old 09-24-2008, 05:14 AM
  #13  
TECH Enthusiast
 
RoAdRaGe912's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

hopefully it's a typo...

I never knew about the baby LT1, but I never researched Caprices.
Old 09-24-2008, 08:40 AM
  #14  
12 Second Club
iTrader: (129)
 
fergymoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 2,810
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts

Default

If anyone else had said it I would have thought typo....
Old 09-24-2008, 08:47 AM
  #15  
Internet Mechanic
iTrader: (17)
 
BlackScreaminMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Wallingford CT
Posts: 9,831
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts

Default

A 5.7 LT1 shares the same cyl Bore 4.000" you CAN destroke it down but there really isnt a point.....
Old 09-24-2008, 08:57 AM
  #16  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Formula350's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Decatur, TN (N-W of Athens)
Posts: 7,564
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 96capricemgr
One of the Impala guys did that with my old L99 crank and rods for a 302 with stock LT1 pistons and yeah it sucked.

Must be a typo that you think rods affect displacement?
Just going by what the math says.
Old 09-24-2008, 10:21 AM
  #17  
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
 
goldmecham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

he must be talking about a 3rd gen where the 5sp only V8 motor was a 305(5.0L). Maybe the 3rd gen verts too but not sure on that.
Old 09-24-2008, 06:59 PM
  #18  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Formula350's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Decatur, TN (N-W of Athens)
Posts: 7,564
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by goldmecham
he must be talking about a 3rd gen where the 5sp only V8 motor was a 305(5.0L). Maybe the 3rd gen verts too but not sure on that.
Thats a LB9 TPI motor though, and VERY different looking than a LT1.
Old 09-24-2008, 07:36 PM
  #19  
11 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
 
96capricemgr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,975
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 12 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Formula350
Just going by what the math says.
Let's be clear. You think some sort of math causes changing rod length from 5.700" to 5.940" changes displacement??

Let's play math class and show your work?
Old 09-24-2008, 07:45 PM
  #20  
11 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
 
SS MPSTR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,510
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Default

Huh? rod length affects displacement? stroke does, but sorry, rod length is irrelevant.


Quick Reply: Wtf



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:28 AM.