4.3 L Lt1 ??????
11-30-2006, 11:53 PM
#21
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Grayson,ga.
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe I read one of my magazines a while back,they(GM)took a 93-95 formula with that size LT1 V8 and put a supercharger on it.I'll have to look for it.
Last edited by EVILWS6; 12-01-2006 at 11:11 AM.
12-01-2006, 12:38 AM
#22
So, can you take the baby LT1 4.3 V8 (265 ci) and use something like BS3 to allow the motor to spin to 7800 to 8000. Would that be the range you would need if you were trying to build 302 LT1 ? Just curious, it would be cool if someone actually put one of these little monsters together and set it up for some nasty high rpm horsepower....
12-01-2006, 05:37 AM
#23
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EVILWS6
I believe I read one of my magazines a while back,they took(GM 265 c.i.) in a 93-95 formula with that size LT1 V8 and put a supercharger on it.I'll have to look for it.
12-01-2006, 05:41 AM
#24
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Decatur, TN (N-W of Athens)
Posts: 7,564
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
The smallest SBC is either a 262 or a 263, I can't remember. A friend in high school's Impala (85? boat still) had a 265 V8. He never changed the oil since it leaked/burned a quart every week LOL
We had a little discussion about the 4.3 LT1. I wanted to take the crank and make a destroker motor from it for higher revs out of a stock setup. With out having to drop a bunch of money on a different setup.
We had a little discussion about the 4.3 LT1. I wanted to take the crank and make a destroker motor from it for higher revs out of a stock setup. With out having to drop a bunch of money on a different setup.
12-01-2006, 08:38 AM
#25
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Waco, TX
Posts: 6,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.akmcables.com/l99.htm
That's pictures of one going in to my 94Z. Put down 203 rwhp untuned. I mighta been able to get 210 out of 'er.
That's with SLP single cat headers, ported intake, 58mm tb, etc. 
It's out now, a 383 went in over the summer. I'll sell the L99 cheap if anyone wants to come get it.
That's pictures of one going in to my 94Z. Put down 203 rwhp untuned. I mighta been able to get 210 out of 'er.
That's with SLP single cat headers, ported intake, 58mm tb, etc. It's out now, a 383 went in over the summer. I'll sell the L99 cheap if anyone wants to come get it.
12-01-2006, 11:08 AM
#27
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Grayson,ga.
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by zlover129
It wa a 93 car i believe and GM itself did this
12-01-2006, 02:26 PM
#28
TECH Addict
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kzoo, MI
Posts: 2,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Formula350
The smallest SBC is either a 262 or a 263, I can't remember. A friend in high school's Impala (85? boat still) had a 265 V8. He never changed the oil since it leaked/burned a quart every week LOL
We had a little discussion about the 4.3 LT1. I wanted to take the crank and make a destroker motor from it for higher revs out of a stock setup. With out having to drop a bunch of money on a different setup.
We had a little discussion about the 4.3 LT1. I wanted to take the crank and make a destroker motor from it for higher revs out of a stock setup. With out having to drop a bunch of money on a different setup.
that would be a 4.3L V6.. I dont recall there being a 4.3L v6 until the L99 came out...
12-01-2006, 04:20 PM
#30
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Decatur, TN (N-W of Athens)
Posts: 7,564
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Well I don't know what year it was, I know it was an 80s, and I know it was a V8, a 265. Because he prided himself on having the second smallest GM V8 in his boat lol
12-01-2006, 06:12 PM
#31
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You chirren listen up to us old fogies, now, hear?
The SBC was introduced in 1955 (how old were YOU then? I was 10). It had 265 cubic inches. Then in '57 or so they upped the size to 283. Then 327, then 350. Various and sundry other sizes appeared over the years including 302 (the '67 - '69 Z28), 305, 307, 262, and probably a few others I'm forgetting - it's not alzheimers, just crs.
And let's try not to refer to the mid-90's reverse flow fuel injected 4.3L V8 as a "4.3L LT1", shall we? It's an L99, dammit.
Easy, Gary, where's your nitro pills?
Cheers -- Gary
The SBC was introduced in 1955 (how old were YOU then? I was 10). It had 265 cubic inches. Then in '57 or so they upped the size to 283. Then 327, then 350. Various and sundry other sizes appeared over the years including 302 (the '67 - '69 Z28), 305, 307, 262, and probably a few others I'm forgetting - it's not alzheimers, just crs.
And let's try not to refer to the mid-90's reverse flow fuel injected 4.3L V8 as a "4.3L LT1", shall we? It's an L99, dammit.
Easy, Gary, where's your nitro pills?
Cheers -- Gary
12-01-2006, 08:13 PM
#33
When I first built my Camaro I worked with the NHRA and GM to get the L99 into the Stock/Super Stock classification guide. I then built one and ran it in IHRA Stock GT. At 3300 lbs (RW) it ran 7.85 in the eighth mile! It made just a little over 300 rwhp and was a blast to drive. It's a shame that the IHRA banned fuel injection from the Stock GT classes, because I never got near the potential out of that motor (I only ever made four passes with it before it was banned).
There was one car running an L99 in Super Stock GT that was running in the 10.80's last year (1/4).
Daren
There was one car running an L99 in Super Stock GT that was running in the 10.80's last year (1/4).
Daren
12-01-2006, 09:20 PM
#34
I wish I had not parted mine out. Would love to have run it with the current stall and gears, it would have liked it.
Other than insurance I think it would have been better for GM to use it as the base f-body motor rather than the V6, would have made the engine cheaper by volume as well as the f-bodies cheaper to produce due to all the same k-memebr wiring and all. Insurance companies would have seen it as a V8 though even if it was only V6 like power.
Other than insurance I think it would have been better for GM to use it as the base f-body motor rather than the V6, would have made the engine cheaper by volume as well as the f-bodies cheaper to produce due to all the same k-memebr wiring and all. Insurance companies would have seen it as a V8 though even if it was only V6 like power.
12-01-2006, 09:25 PM
#35
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Decatur, TN (N-W of Athens)
Posts: 7,564
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
400, and didn't GM have a SB 427 for a short while? Not the LS7 mind you.
EDIT: NM I'm thinking the GM "W" Block. 348, 409 and 427.
EDIT: NM I'm thinking the GM "W" Block. 348, 409 and 427.
Last edited by Formula350; 12-01-2006 at 09:38 PM.
