Mens Rea

iTrader: (2)

What is this exactly that makes the '93 LT1 faster than the others, stock for stock?

MrCadillac

huh? I thought the 93 had a slightly larger cam, more choked exhuast, and less flowing heads than Irons- or the very late castings. but the 93 was a MAF-less system, so it has to calculate how much air is being flowed by MAP signal, and other sensors, instead of the MAF monitoring it. there is a guy with a fleetwood who removed his MAF, because(i think) he felt that the car ran better without, and just tuned accordingly.

96capricemgr

iTrader: (1)

I do not believe the 93 is faster. Speed density means the air usage is calculated based off MAP and IAT rather than measured with a MAF. Simple changes like cams that affect vacuum readings therefore require much more extensive reprogramming to get the tables used for the calculations back in line.

The MAF system is much more adaptive and easier to tune, keep it unless you are looking for something WILD. If you do endup looking for 9s NA or something the 95 pcm can be tuned for speed density and you retain the wonderful flash memory rather than the chips of the 93 system though I think you can get "realtime" tunable systems to work with the 93 setup.

Ed Wright

iTrader: (1)

That is just another internet myth. I have probably dyno tested as many LT1 cars as anybody in the country, and I can tell you they certainly don't make any more power than the later models.

TwoFast4Lv

iTrader: (8)

THANK YOU ED!!

borninatransam

iTrader: (4)

with maf readings you sometimes lose throttle response because of it. many shops will tune it but there is only so much you can do. where as a speed density has to much more exact and if done correctly will actually give you more power. but stock for stock there is no truth to that myth but in racing applications you will see people running speed density for the throttle response.

96capricemgr

iTrader: (1)

Do you realize whom you just contradicted? Ed has forgotten more about the LT1 than most here will ever hope to know and for a long time was THE LT1 tuner and is still one nobody not even the competition will say anything bad about his knowledge or skill.

Ed Wright

iTrader: (1)

I don't know what you are smoking, but it must be some good ****! I have had my cars both ways. I'm using speed density right now. You have evidently been reading the pcm tuning section. A lot of butt dynoes need re-calibrated over there. Even at 500 rwhp, speed density is only worth 5 or 6 rwhp. NOBODY can feel 5 or 6o rwhp on a 500 rwhp car. You can imagine it, but you can't really feel it. The power of sugestion is a wonderful thing.

97WS6NY

Is it really worth the hassle of tuning a speed density system for 5-8 hp? i don't think so

Ed Wright

iTrader: (1)

Nor do I. Only if you race it. Your talking a couple hundredths at best in the 1/4 mile. Speed density cars are more sensitive to air & temp changes. I have a ton of time working with tables that had little effect with a MAF, just to stop my track times from changing so much when the weather changed. I think a lot of guys do that just because they can, and think they it sounds cool to tell about it. Like bigger injectors than you need. Sounds cool to the kids at the Sonic to hear you have 75lb injectors. Even if 30lbs would be plenty.

Hope everybody has a nice weekend.

97WS6NY

I agree, the hassle involved is just not worth the gain unless you need every last hundreth of a second. i am converting to a single plain intake this winter and should be near the 490-500rwhp mark and still don't think it is worth that hassle. even if i switch to a solid roller next spring i won't do it.