ls1 vs. lt1
Re: ls1 vs. lt1 Stock:
LT1 = 13.8 - 14.3
LS1 = 12.9 - 13.5
Depending on transmission, driver and track/air quality of course. <img border="0" alt="[Burnout]" title="" src="graemlins/burnout.gif" />
LT1 = 13.8 - 14.3
LS1 = 12.9 - 13.5
Depending on transmission, driver and track/air quality of course. <img border="0" alt="[Burnout]" title="" src="graemlins/burnout.gif" />
TECH Resident
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
From: Mentor, Ohio
Re: ls1 vs. lt1 I have seen a lot of NA Lt1s run quicker then 13.8, not stock of course. My old car was a 95 LT1 formula, and check this out:
-1995 formula loaded with cloth interior and t-tops, A4 with 2.73 gears, goodyear RSA allseasons
-stock everything except:
HPP3-used to firm up shifts, remove 117mph limiter, turn fans on @ 160', and I messed with the shift points and MPH, and I used the power tuning for a stock thermostat
-I added a K&N FILTERCHARGER(replaced the entire airbox assembly)
With only these two mods I went from a stock 14.4@98mph to a 13.9@101mph! Thats was one fast car for what it was. The best thing was I cut off the bump stop on the shifter so I could manually shift into low 1 or 1st gear. On the Firebirds there was a little rubber/plastic stopper on the shifter assembly that wouldn't allow the shifter to be pulled all the way down into 1st gear, and the shifter readout only said 2-D-OD-N-R-P instead of 1-2-D-OD-N-R-P. Only the cars with 2.73 gears had that blocker on them, but with it removed I could grab 1st gear at almost 50mph and still have some gear left. I am not joking either, when that car shifted into 3rd or "D" I was within 2-3 cars of the finish line at the 1/4 mile track.
-1995 formula loaded with cloth interior and t-tops, A4 with 2.73 gears, goodyear RSA allseasons
-stock everything except:
HPP3-used to firm up shifts, remove 117mph limiter, turn fans on @ 160', and I messed with the shift points and MPH, and I used the power tuning for a stock thermostat
-I added a K&N FILTERCHARGER(replaced the entire airbox assembly)
With only these two mods I went from a stock 14.4@98mph to a 13.9@101mph! Thats was one fast car for what it was. The best thing was I cut off the bump stop on the shifter so I could manually shift into low 1 or 1st gear. On the Firebirds there was a little rubber/plastic stopper on the shifter assembly that wouldn't allow the shifter to be pulled all the way down into 1st gear, and the shifter readout only said 2-D-OD-N-R-P instead of 1-2-D-OD-N-R-P. Only the cars with 2.73 gears had that blocker on them, but with it removed I could grab 1st gear at almost 50mph and still have some gear left. I am not joking either, when that car shifted into 3rd or "D" I was within 2-3 cars of the finish line at the 1/4 mile track.
TECH Resident
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte, North Carolina
Re: ls1 vs. lt1 I love every single f-body ever made, but the LS1 offers the best performance money can buy period. The only positive side to the LT1 is parts are plentiful and much cheaper then the ls1. Of course you have to then compensate for the horsepower difference between the two, by doing more mods to the LT1.
On The Tree
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
From: Atascocita, Tx
Re: ls1 vs. lt1 Wow, when i had my 97 Formula with 2.73 gears, A4, with 60some thousand miles on it i ran a low 13.8 with CAI and SLP loudmouth as my only mods. Of course i did 'some' weight reduction. I took out the front right passenger seat, left rear bucket seat (not the back), door panels, tire & jack, and the insulation and stuff in the back trunk area. With very little money mods, and weight reduction LT1s can get 13s easy. Course a stock LS1 will run low 13s all day, so LS1 > LT1 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
TECH Apprentice
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
From: West Columbia
Re: ls1 vs. lt1 Ls1's are a better engine...to contend with an LT1 which I have I must say...you gotta do the LT4 conversion. The LT4 is rated at 330 hp and fairly so is an Ls1 in say an SS.
Either way you go you can go fast with the right parts.
hank
Either way you go you can go fast with the right parts.
hank
Trending Topics
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
Five Reasons the Camaro Was the Most Pivotal Player in the Pony Car Wars 2.0
Brett Foote
TECH Regular
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
From: Yakima, WA
Re: ls1 vs. lt1 My 97 Z28 went 13.8s dead stock at 1300ft of elevation. No weight reduction.
The real difference I suppose is the goal for the car. How fast do you want to go?? For a car going faster then 10s (9s and faster) an LT1 is a much simpler, cheaper, and easier breed.
An easy Bolt-on or heads/cam car though the LS1 does seem to be the hot ticket.
[Flame Suit On]
<small>[ November 12, 2002, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: KTamez ]</small>
The real difference I suppose is the goal for the car. How fast do you want to go?? For a car going faster then 10s (9s and faster) an LT1 is a much simpler, cheaper, and easier breed.
An easy Bolt-on or heads/cam car though the LS1 does seem to be the hot ticket.
[Flame Suit On]
<small>[ November 12, 2002, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: KTamez ]</small>
On The Tree
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: eastside
Re: ls1 vs. lt1 i ran 13.81@101 in my 96 SS 6-speed when it was completely stock with no weight reduction. i put some et streets on and then ran a 13.59@103. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0
From: kuwait
Re: ls1 vs. lt1 My old car is Trans am 94/M6
With only these mods.
( 3.73 gear ratio , hpp3 , fipk k&n , borla exhaust system ,
ported mass air and intake , underdrive crank and alternator pulley ,
edelbrock headers , Ypip , MSD wires , NGK TR55 , hurst shifter ,
some free mods )
Note: After I transfer from A4 to M6 I felt that my car is much better than befor .
access : bugatti wheels 17"*9.5 chrome
my best time ( G-teck ) : 13.12@112.33 (stock tires and clutch)
Thanks.
Fahad.
With only these mods.
( 3.73 gear ratio , hpp3 , fipk k&n , borla exhaust system ,
ported mass air and intake , underdrive crank and alternator pulley ,
edelbrock headers , Ypip , MSD wires , NGK TR55 , hurst shifter ,
some free mods )
Note: After I transfer from A4 to M6 I felt that my car is much better than befor .
access : bugatti wheels 17"*9.5 chrome
my best time ( G-teck ) : 13.12@112.33 (stock tires and clutch)
Thanks.
Fahad.
Administrator
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 45,841
Likes: 5
From: Earth
Re: ls1 vs. lt1 "My 94 Z ran 13.64 @ 100.4 factory stock. My friends 6speed 95 Z28 ran 13.67 @ 102.7 factory stock. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't been done."
That's a fairly low mph for 13.6's. Those times were probably on sub 2.0 60'.
That's a fairly low mph for 13.6's. Those times were probably on sub 2.0 60'.
Re: ls1 vs. lt1 I've seen several completely bone stock (meaning EVERYTHING) '01 and up LS1's run 13.1-13.4 @ 105-107. When I bought mine, I greatly preferred a NEW car over a used one, so there wasn't any decision to it for me. Here are the differences that one must weigh when they make the decision:
LT1
-cheaper
-slightly cheaper to modify
-less power from the factory
-more developed aftermarket (by about 5 years give or take)
-older
LS1
-more expensive
-more expensive to modify
-more power from the factory
-less-developed aftermarket
-newer
Mustangs
-junk <img border="0" alt="[jester]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_jest.gif" /> (Just kidding, don't get your panties in a wad)
Does that about cover it?
LT1
-cheaper
-slightly cheaper to modify
-less power from the factory
-more developed aftermarket (by about 5 years give or take)
-older
LS1
-more expensive
-more expensive to modify
-more power from the factory
-less-developed aftermarket
-newer
Mustangs
-junk <img border="0" alt="[jester]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_jest.gif" /> (Just kidding, don't get your panties in a wad)
Does that about cover it?
Re: ls1 vs. lt1 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ou812/z28:
<strong>i have a freind that ran an 13.00 all stock with an lt-1 and yes it suprised me. all it had was 4.10 gears/</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Man, I don't know how you hit the "T" on accident cuz the "S" is all the way over on the left side of the keyboard. Might want to fix that. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
<strong>i have a freind that ran an 13.00 all stock with an lt-1 and yes it suprised me. all it had was 4.10 gears/</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Man, I don't know how you hit the "T" on accident cuz the "S" is all the way over on the left side of the keyboard. Might want to fix that. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
TECH Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,234
Likes: 1
From: Mississauga, Ontario
Re: ls1 vs. lt1 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by camaro_ls1:
<strong>I've yet to see a NA LT1 run quicker than 13.8.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mine will next year, I guarantee it. I ran a 13.89 at 98.2 in bone stock trim this year, but I later found a bad vacuum leak and I also replaced both o2 sensors and it's running way better since. I ran at the track once after that but only ran a 14.04, I spun all through first and into second and even got rubber on the 2-3, all because the track was very cold and in poor condition. I estimate my car should run a 13.7 no problem on a good track day, with zero mods. It's a low option 95 Formula, 3.23 A4 hardtop. Curb weight on a half tank is 3440.
<small>[ December 08, 2002, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]</small>
<strong>I've yet to see a NA LT1 run quicker than 13.8.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mine will next year, I guarantee it. I ran a 13.89 at 98.2 in bone stock trim this year, but I later found a bad vacuum leak and I also replaced both o2 sensors and it's running way better since. I ran at the track once after that but only ran a 14.04, I spun all through first and into second and even got rubber on the 2-3, all because the track was very cold and in poor condition. I estimate my car should run a 13.7 no problem on a good track day, with zero mods. It's a low option 95 Formula, 3.23 A4 hardtop. Curb weight on a half tank is 3440.
<small>[ December 08, 2002, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]</small>
