Stock S2K vs.... me?
#61
12 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Wilkes-barre
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The L98 would hang pretty good down low, but the LT1 will keep on trucking while it falls flat on it's face. The midgetized intake runners on the LT1s worked wonders for their upper RPM power. The Tune Port cars are torquey down low and fair pretty well in shorter runs. From what I've seen, LTs usually average about half a second faster, if that.
There's slow and quick examples of either, but the edge goes to the LT1 on average.
There's slow and quick examples of either, but the edge goes to the LT1 on average.
#63
On The Tree
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arden Hills, MN
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
![Icon Confused](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/icon_confused.gif)
#64
TECH Senior Member
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The F20C was stroked out to 2.2 liters because Honda wanted to shift the power/torque curves lower, and they achieved their goal.
And I'd wager when the LS1 was designed, the designers did have hp/l in mind. The fact that they wanted to keep it at 5.7 liters and increase the horsepower significantly kinda lends credibility to the theory.
#65
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Wasn't displacement limited to 5L for its racing class?
And why do you think they would they want to do that?
45hp is a significant increase? Wait scratch that, the LT4 made 330hp, so 15hp is significant? GM wanted a smaller, lighter engine that was more fuel efficient for their flagship sports car. 5.7L stayed around for traditions sake.
And why do you think they would they want to do that?
45hp is a significant increase? Wait scratch that, the LT4 made 330hp, so 15hp is significant? GM wanted a smaller, lighter engine that was more fuel efficient for their flagship sports car. 5.7L stayed around for traditions sake.
#67
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
If that was true, the L98 Vettes would be faster than the LT1s
. Horsepower is a derivative of torque, so treating them as completely seperate things is stupid.
![Winky](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_wink.gif)
#69
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I'd rather have an engine with 400hp and 300lb/ft of torque than 300hp and 400lb/ft of torque. Once you start moving to higher-revving motors that make a lot of power, they're gonna make more horsepower than torque. It's not just little 4cyls.
#70
TECH Senior Member
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
LT1's are faster because they make more torque from idle to redline, not just more peak hp.