350 groundpounder

iTrader: (5)

So a lt4 camaro supp runs a 13.2 @ 109 with a 4.9 0-60 time according to tests. It was rated at 330hp.
No way having just 1.6 rr's lighter valves, slightly better flowing heads and a slightly bigger cam made it run that fast over a stock LT1.
To run that time and trap wouldn't it need to make at least 360+fwhp?

MonmouthCtyLS7

iTrader: (6)

Why not? I ran a few stock auto 323 cars that ran consistent 13.8's, and I've heard of a few stock stick cars(mostly SS/WS6's/Firehawks) going 13.5-7's. Supposedly a couple of LT1 cars have hit lower 13's stock but id have to see that to believe it.

fbody_brian

I would think that if you could run a high 13, then you got a slightly bigger cam, roller rockers, lighter valves, better heads and intake you could drop .5 off your et.
edit: Didn't they also get a better exhaust?
IDK though, I take all the stock times posted by various magazines with a grain of salt. There's so many variables, track prep, DA, driver, etc.

Mappinsj

lt1 corvettes from the 90s should be able to do mid to high 13s on a good day

350 groundpounder

iTrader: (5)

F body brian, prob a pro driver for sure with these magazines. Still had to be at least 350hp.

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

Friend of mine had a stock LT4 vette that ran 13.0 @ 112 with Drag Radials and 13.2 @ 110 on street tires. Dyno was 300rwhp. Not sure of torque. Seems on par with everything else written about it.

MonmouthCtyLS7

iTrader: (6)

Not that I ever go by what R&T runs a car at but they ran a 96 GS LT4 to a 13.7. Throw a few more pounds on for a Fbody. Stock numbers are pretty on par w/ average LS1's. We know LS1's have but im pretty sure I heard of a few LT4's running high 12's stock,

350 groundpounder

iTrader: (5)

Ss rrr I wanna run a 13.2 @ 110 once my bolt ons are done in spring. I should be at least 290rw with full exhaust, tune, and ewp through an m6! Im tired of my low 14's!!!!! @ 101.

bowtienut

iTrader: (1)

It's been noted before that GM intentionally under-rated the LT4, having a good idea in 1996 what the 1997 LS1 was going to produce, and making DAMN sure it wasn't less than the previous (LT4) engine in the Vette!
It's typical for bone-stock M6 LT4 Vettes to put 300 SAE to the wheels.

ahritchie

iTrader: (1)

Slightly better heads? 212 vs 240 CFM is more than slight...it's significant. You also neglected to mention the increased CR 10.8:1 and significantly increased redline from 5700 to 6300 RPM with better springs/valvetrain....it all adds up! It's on par with the "305" hp LS1 so I see no reason to question the HP. I'm sure it probably has a slightly better torque curve too!

Also, the LT4 knock module is known to add 30+ hp itself...

MonmouthCtyLS7

iTrader: (6)

That was a popular mod back in the LT1 days. Wow the bs I use to read about it on Camaroz28.com

fbody_brian

If I were trapping 110 I'd expect to see high to mid12s.
I ran 13.76@104 with street tires and headers. 13.36@103 adding DRs, 12.9@105 adding rockers, but I'm at sea level.
What is the DA normally where you run?

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

At 101 you should be 13.9's, son.


Me too, but it is what it is. More than likely it was track prep that had something to do with it. This was 17 years ago so I don't rightly recall.

ahritchie

iTrader: (1)

I'm gonna go ahead call BS on this wild 110 MPH trap speed claim ....every publication I've ever seen puts them in the 103-106MPH range. The Corvette being the faster one of course. OP, please post a valid reputable link to a road test for this supposed 110MPH freak LT4....

Motor trend got 103 out of a Firehawk:
http://www.motortrend.com/news/1997-pontiac-firehawk/

Road and track got 105 out of a Grand sport:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...e-grand-sport/


I don't see where an additional 5-7 MPH trap speed is coming from unless it's NOT stock or someone is lying...

HellTeeOne

Back in 2001 I drove a stock LT4 Corvette to 12.8@110. It was a fall day with cool dry air, so that may have had something to do with it. 108-110 seemed to be the norm for them back then.

Stock LT1 f-bodies were known to trap as high as 102 in good conditions.

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

lol... k.. years ago you would have been laughed off the forums for referencing magazing times as being anything significant, but since hardly anyone races anymore that's all you have... Magzines use correction factors for their times, they do not run on a prepped track, and there were piles of complaints years ago that they didn't know how to drive. Some of those magazines were also claimming the 96 SS when low 13's at 108 to mid 13's at 106 to high 13's at 102.

bufmatmuslepants

iTrader: (3)

I see no issue, long tubes can take an LT1 into the 12s with 290rwhp, so 330fwhp would do it.

96capricemgr

iTrader: (1)

Before this becomes any more of a magical benchrace fest.
Most of the LT1 head porters don't like LT4s because material is already removed from the places they want it left..

The head flow thing it is what 15% bigger port for 13% more flow and more cam lift,roller rockers, more compression, bigger valves. Doesn't it beg the question why it ONLY made the extra power it did. I know some of you will claim the LT4 was underrated by like 50hp because you believe in the toothfairy.

NewOrleansLT1

From what I see the LT4 actually makes 345-350hp.. And they can make some decent power with a cam.. The head flow is there, but the stock cam is holding there potential back..

96capricemgr

iTrader: (1)

That is still less percentage increase than one would expect from the flow difference especially when you consider the added rpm, roller rockers and timing chain, compression.